In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote: Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:
On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote:
On March 20 2015 02:36 Acrofales wrote: [quote]
That's fine. But what is wrong with simply requiring a valid ID when actually showing up to vote instead of requiring a secondary document? Other countries (e.g. all of Europe) have been doing it like that without any significant fraud problems.
The way it works in NL is that if you have a registered address with the government, you automatically get your voting registration sent to your home. Showing up with this piece of paper and a valid ID to your designated voting booth allows you to vote. If for some reason you want to vote at a different booth, you request an exception, send back your piece of paper and get issued a new one. If for some reason you do not have a registered address (e.g. citizens living abroad), you have to do a bit more work to get registered at a specific booth (for those living abroad: voting by mail. For those who unregistered in one home and are in transition, the same exception protocol as for voting at a different booth).
In Spain, you don't even have the piece of paper: you are registered at the booth near your home, and if you show up with your ID, your name gets scratched off a list and you can vote.
And yes, this assumes the government has an administration with registry of where people live. In both Spain and NL this registration is mandatory for all kinds of things (but the government mainly uses it to collect your municipal taxes). If in the US there is no such registry then I can understand voter ID laws; I would just be highly surprised: how do municipal taxes get collected? How do they prevent you from registering your car to some completely random address?
i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind.
Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card.
Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
On March 20 2015 08:04 Nyxisto wrote: How does voting actually work right now without ID's? Do you just turn up and say you want to vote? Do you not need to be registered?
Yes you do need to be registered. You just show up and they cross your name off a list. If you don't do it in person, you just mail it in instead.
A few states like mine have same day voter registration, which means you can just show up to vote and register and cast your vote. That's not the norm, though. In most states you have to register prior to the election or you can't vote in it. Assuming you've registered to vote they have a list of all the registered voters in each precinct and your name gets marked off when you vote, that's the system.
On March 20 2015 08:34 Velr wrote: I don't get it.
Is there no document that makes you a citizen of the US? Don't your communes know who lives in them? I'm assuming they have to know because of Taxes.
So they send your stuff by Mail (like they do for taxes?) and bang your done.
Why would you need to register seperately? It just seems totally arbitrary to me.
birth certificate if born in US; immigration papers if not born in US establish citizenship primarily.
if you own property, they know where you live. if you just rent or freeload, they will only know when you change your government info (e.g., DMV, voter registration, etc.). if you move a lot and dont update info, they are SOL.
taxes arent sent by mail unless you are referring to property taxes. you send in your tax forms (which lets them update your address by the way, if they were so inclined).
voter info primarily relies on two things: (1) DMV records; and (2) voluntary voter registration. it works out fine for people who got their shit together, it works poorly for those who dont. you can guess who the latter are.
It doesn't take some magical eye to see what's happening.
When the longest average wait time to vote (by state) is about 34 minutes and certain groups are waiting 7+ hours in line to vote it's pretty obvious.
When a group is more focused on ID than making sure people who want (and have the legal right) to vote have a reasonable opportunity, it's pretty clear what their intentions are too.
On March 20 2015 08:34 Velr wrote: I don't get it.
Is there no document that makes you a citizen of the US? Don't your communes know who lives in them? I'm assuming they have to know because of Taxes.
So they send your stuff by Mail (like they do for taxes?) and bang your done.
Why would you need to register seperately? It just seems totally arbitrary to me.
birth certificate if born in US; immigration papers if not born in US establish citizenship primarily.
if you own property, they know where you live. if you just rent or freeload, they will only know when you change your government info (e.g., DMV, voter registration, etc.). if you move a lot and dont update info, they are SOL.
taxes arent sent by mail unless you are referring to property taxes. you send in your tax forms (which lets them update your address by the way, if they were so inclined).
voter info primarily relies on two things: (1) DMV records; and (2) voluntary voter registration. it works out fine for people who got their shit together, it works poorly for those who dont. you can guess who the latter are.
Have to point out that they can find you through the tax forms that employers send to employees and file with the IRS (W-2, 1099, etc). Being a W-2 employee (salary with benefits for the non-Americans) does require jumping through a hoop to prove you have the right to work in the US. Since the employer gets dinged for noncompliance and usually has much more to lose, they have an incentive to do it right if they file correctly. But the system is primarily a voluntary one and one that assumes people don't move around much.
Voter registration is for state and local election purposes mostly, not presidential elections.
Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
I showed up to my local town hall (its actually called ___ town hall even though we're a township) with a photo id and I registered same day. Other years I just say who I am and they cross me off a list.
They have no cause mail in voting in Minnesota now so you never have to leave your house now if you don't want to to vote.
Its a real cheap argument for republicans to argue for better voting laws and democrats have to always be against it due to it repressing minority turnout no matter what extra barriers to vote there are. I don't believe you can honestly say that its always about racism but when the status quo is disadvantageous to minority voting Its ironically beneficial for republicans to advocate for change on the issue.
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote: Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
[quote]
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it. I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those. Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
You knew what I meant. This wasn't on the Republican national talking point list until people on the left started opposing it.
As an example, Wisconsin's law was put on hold by the Supreme Court because they said it was reinstated too close to the election. That's a clear case of judges actually causing the delays.
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote: Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote:
On March 20 2015 02:40 dAPhREAk wrote: [quote] i have never heard of a secondary document and i think thats bullshit (not your statement, the requirement, if any). when i vote, i go with my driver's license, give it to them, they scratch me off and i vote. thats all that should be required in my mind.
Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card.
Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
Most of the ID laws end up being upheld, more or less.
We've talked about this before and it was pointed out (I think it was from a GAO analysis) that out of ~10 studies, 5 found a significant decrease in voting across all groups, 4 found no significant decrease, and one found an increase. In particular, in a few states there was a decrease in black turnout but no decrease in Hispanic or Asian turnout.
If the Republicans were trying to suppress people they could do a hell of a better job.
In states like Pa, which is mentioned below, valid ID possession is almost identical between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Only a few states have had significant court challenges, and some of them are still in limbo, like Texas. Arkansas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head where it really was struck down (by the state Court).
In Indiana (where this issue really became big) the law was upheld, and iirc, there was actually in increase in turnout among all groups after the law was passed.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it. I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those. Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
You knew what I meant. This wasn't on the Republican national talking point list until people on the left started opposing it.
As an example, Wisconsin's law was put on hold by the Supreme Court because they said it was reinstated too close to the election. That's a clear case of judges actually causing the delays.
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote: Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
On March 20 2015 02:45 Acrofales wrote: [quote]
Yeah, it was my misunderstanding as a foreigner based on how things were being represented in the media. I honestly thought you were required to have a regular ID card, and with that, you could register to vote, giving you a secondary voter ID card.
Requiring some type of identification at the polling station seems more than normal. In fact, not requiring that kind of ID seems somewhat insane.
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
Most of the ID laws end up being upheld, more or less.
We've talked about this before and it was pointed out (I think it was from a GAO analysis) that out of ~10 studies, 5 found a significant decrease in voting across all groups, 4 found no significant decrease, and one found an increase. In particular, in a few states there was a decrease in black turnout but no decrease in Hispanic or Asian turnout.
If the Republicans were trying to suppress people they could do a hell of a better job.
In states like Pa, which is mentioned below, valid ID possession is almost incidental between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Only a few states have had significant court challenges, and some of them are still in limbo, like Texas. Arkansas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head where it really was struck down (by the state Court).
In Indiana (where this issue really became big) the law was upheld, and iirc, there was actually in increase in turnout among all groups after the law was passed.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
Whether efforts to suppress the vote are effective or not doesn't have much bearing on the clear intent. Whether they were talking about their national strategy or not didn't mean it wasn't coordinated.
Also none of that really addresses the other crap around voter suppression that was stuffed into the "voter ID laws" or written separately.
For instance, what does taking away an early voting weekend have to do with voter ID?
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
The intent is more important than the details or the results? I couldn't disagree with you more. Is that an American thing thing why rhetoric is so important?
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it. I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those. Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
You knew what I meant. This wasn't on the Republican national talking point list until people on the left started opposing it.
As an example, Wisconsin's law was put on hold by the Supreme Court because they said it was reinstated too close to the election. That's a clear case of judges actually causing the delays.
On March 20 2015 08:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 20 2015 04:56 Introvert wrote: Type of ID would depend on the place. For instance, cali would have to have a separate ID to use because illegal immigrants can get a driver's license.
Which is insane in and of itself, but whatever.
[quote]
It is insane. People talk about suppression but as far as I'm aware, for most challenged ID laws, the courts have dismissed that. Either the supposed effect doesn't happen (i.e., it's not hard to get the ID) or they say that it affects so few that it's with it.
If some of these states are going to do things like driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, then I'm sure we can expect regular citizens to take the time to drive or take the bus a few miles to get their own ID for voting (once every few years).
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
Most of the ID laws end up being upheld, more or less.
We've talked about this before and it was pointed out (I think it was from a GAO analysis) that out of ~10 studies, 5 found a significant decrease in voting across all groups, 4 found no significant decrease, and one found an increase. In particular, in a few states there was a decrease in black turnout but no decrease in Hispanic or Asian turnout.
If the Republicans were trying to suppress people they could do a hell of a better job.
In states like Pa, which is mentioned below, valid ID possession is almost incidental between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Only a few states have had significant court challenges, and some of them are still in limbo, like Texas. Arkansas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head where it really was struck down (by the state Court).
In Indiana (where this issue really became big) the law was upheld, and iirc, there was actually in increase in turnout among all groups after the law was passed.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
Whether efforts to suppress the vote are effective or not doesn't have much bearing on the clear intent. Also whether they were talking about their national strategy or not didn't mean it wasn't coordinated.
Also none of that really addresses the other crap around voter suppression that was stuffed into the "voter ID laws" or written separately.
For instance, what does taking away an early voting weekend have to do with voter ID?
It's only clear to you and others who already believe that Republicans are out to get people. If it doesn't affect the results, then why would I be in favor of it instead of opposing it?
I assume you know the real reason that there are fewer days, I'm not going to take the bait.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base. If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
The intent is more important than the details or the results? I couldn't disagree with you more.
Uh, the results of the voter id laws we're talking about was, as you could see from the article and the report it references, a decrease in voter turnout in some of the states such laws were passed and enacted in. Is there something you're not understanding about this?
Yeah I've posted I don't understand why it's an issue at all and why there is such vehement opposition on both sides. Seems like both issues could be summed up as modernize the voting process(with ID) and reduce voting times with ID and piggybacking the registration info with another government branch(I would support using the IRS database).
On March 20 2015 11:41 Wolfstan wrote: Yeah I've posted I don't understand why it's an issue at all and why there is such vehement opposition on both sides. Seems like both issues could be summed up as modernize the voting process(with ID) and reduce voting times with ID and piggybacking the registration info with another government branch(I would support using the IRS database).
Im not sure, the IRS is a whole mess on its own. Adding voter registration might cause space time to rip.
On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
the laws being non-discriminatory has not been proven time and again, it's more complicated and unclear. With some stats pointing to issues, and others pointing to no apparent racial effect. Note that it also wouldn't be an issue if the right didn't bring it up at all. So it's pretty clear that both sides are involved in making it a big deal. Don't lie and say it's only democrats.
I say that because
A) Polls show wide support for voter ID
B) these are state initiatives that are written and decided on independently of each other, at the state level.
So no, it would NOT be a national issue otherwise.
I agree that now both sides are using it, but there if weren't for politics no one would care. In fact, we could even focus more on what GH wants us to focus on! Vote times! Instead we are stuck with discussing ID laws where, after showing that they are not discriminatory, are being argued against on the grounds that they are being implemented too quickly.
you well know that things can be voted on at the state level, but still a result of a national campaign; and may not be entirely independent of each other, but may well share ideas and techniques (which is rather common in legislation in general). And of course some of these involved the federal voting rights act (prior to its weakening by the court), also making it a national issue.
Again, it has not been established that the laws in question are not discriminatory, it is more uncertain, so please stop asserting it. I'd be happy to work on vote times and improve those. Also, please cite who is objecting on the grounds of too quick implementation? (except in those cases where it really is too quick to give people enough time to make arrangements).
You knew what I meant. This wasn't on the Republican national talking point list until people on the left started opposing it.
As an example, Wisconsin's law was put on hold by the Supreme Court because they said it was reinstated too close to the election. That's a clear case of judges actually causing the delays.
On March 20 2015 08:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:13 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 06:07 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:24 Introvert wrote:
On March 20 2015 05:11 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
On one hand we have the practically non-existent problem of voter id fraud, on the other, we have the very real and significant problem of minority dominated areas having to wait disproportionately longer to vote. That Republicans are more worried about the non-problem is at the core of the issue.
I haven't looked it up, but I'm pretty sure that wait times depend more on the district than the state, so that's not really a national issue.
In my district there used to be pretty long poll times, but guess what happened? They opened up two more polling places in the area and now the wait is 15 min tops. It wasn't the state or the federal government that mandated that.
And given how lax some areas are, it seems entirely possible that the reason we don't see any fraud is because we have no way of catching it.
I don't see the importance of the distinction between a local or national issue? Particularly when it's not just one or two local districts but very many spread across the country.
The issue is that the localities want/ask for the resources but those who control them see large minority/democratic voter numbers and deny them the resources they need or are prescribed by law.
Maybe voter fraud is an issue (I doubt it after they put several bounties up for ANYONE who could find it and got nothing) , but the issue of long voting lines, less days to vote, unjustifiable distribution of resources, etc... is a real issue we don't have to go look for.
My advice would be to stop looking for boogeymen and deal with the problem right in front of our face.
Does this happen?
And we can focus on multiple things here. Voter ID is (as everyone has been saying) fine in principle. It's just that every time it's done liberals run around screaming "discrimination!" without being able to demonstrate it. It wouldn't be a national issue if it wasn't for the left making mountains out of molehills.
So why you even brought this topic up when it's not related to voter ID, I'm not sure...
This is pretty ironic when conservatives want these laws to "protect the system from voter fraud", and yet it's been pretty conclusively demonstrated that in-person voter fraud is pretty much non-existent.
Talk about "making mountains out of molehills".
You have it flipped around. The topic would be pretty boring and non-controversial if the left didn't make such a big deal about it.
The thread has already agreed, voter ID is fine and a good idea. Besides, I think much of the "it doesn't happen" talk is because, with how lenient things are now, it's hard to prove. But that's my own hunch. But it seems well agreed (even here) that the idea of voter ID is a good one. I could turn it around. If, as has been shown time and time again, these laws aren't discriminatory, why would you oppose it? Are lefties now budget hawks? They are pretty cheap laws too.
No, this is an only an issue because the Democrat need rallying cries. The states were doing this on their own, independently of each other.
No it hasn't. Several courts have struck down voter ID laws due to the fact that they disproportionately affect certain socioeconomic classes without actually doing anything meaningful (there is little to no fraud to actually prevent). Furthermore, there are many studies out there that quantify just how many people would be disenfranchised by these laws.
Finally, most people in this thread agree that voter ID laws are OK on principle, not how they're currently implemented in the U.S.
All you're doing is blatantly ignoring anything you disagree with and saying, "everything's fine!". You're completely sweeping all of the issue under the rug in an attempt to trivialize and discredit the left's opinion. It's pretty shameful, really.
Is America really this fucked up? Both sides seem to agree that elections policy is fucked up yet bipartisan support can't be found? How about something like using IRS files for registration and voter ID(conservatives rejoice!) as a tool to get voting times down to a level that "privileged white america" enjoys(liberals rejoice!).
Conservatives could frame it as respectful and representative towards taxpayers while protecting against "fraud".
Liberals could frame it as inclusive and bringing white america efficiency to minorities bringing voting times down and efficiency up.
This seems like such a non-issue to my experience that hearing "but fraud" and "but racism and disillusionment" make me want to pull my hair out.
Yes, America really is this fucked up.
Conservatives won't talk about other ideas because voter I.D. laws aren't actually about stopping voting fraud and some conservatives have explicitly admitted this.
Most of the ID laws end up being upheld, more or less.
We've talked about this before and it was pointed out (I think it was from a GAO analysis) that out of ~10 studies, 5 found a significant decrease in voting across all groups, 4 found no significant decrease, and one found an increase. In particular, in a few states there was a decrease in black turnout but no decrease in Hispanic or Asian turnout.
If the Republicans were trying to suppress people they could do a hell of a better job.
In states like Pa, which is mentioned below, valid ID possession is almost incidental between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Only a few states have had significant court challenges, and some of them are still in limbo, like Texas. Arkansas is the only one I can think of off the top of my head where it really was struck down (by the state Court).
In Indiana (where this issue really became big) the law was upheld, and iirc, there was actually in increase in turnout among all groups after the law was passed.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
Whether efforts to suppress the vote are effective or not doesn't have much bearing on the clear intent. Also whether they were talking about their national strategy or not didn't mean it wasn't coordinated.
Also none of that really addresses the other crap around voter suppression that was stuffed into the "voter ID laws" or written separately.
For instance, what does taking away an early voting weekend have to do with voter ID?
It's only clear to you and others who already believe that Republicans are out to get people. If it doesn't affect the results, then why would I be in favor of it instead of opposing it?
I assume you know the real reason that there are fewer days, I'm not going to take the bait.
On March 20 2015 10:02 kwizach wrote: Here's a thorough 2007 report on voter fraud in the U.S. - its conclusions? That it's a vastly overstated problem which is virtually non-existent in reality.
This New York Times editorial pretty much nails it on the recent voter id laws passed by Republicans:
The Big Lie Behind Voter ID Laws
[...]
Similar laws have been aggressively pushed in many states by Republican lawmakers who say they are preventing voter fraud, promoting electoral “integrity” and increasing voter turnout. None of that is true. There is virtually no in-person voter fraud; the purpose of these laws is to suppress voting.
In Texas, where last week a federal judge struck down what she called the most restrictive voter ID law in the country, there were two convictions for in-person voter impersonation in one 10-year period. During that time, 20 million votes were cast. Nor is there any evidence that these laws encourage more voters to come to the polls. Instead, in at least two states — Kansas and Tennessee — they appear to have reduced turnout by 2 percent to 3 percent, according to a report released last week by the Government Accountability Office.
Voter ID laws, as their supporters know, do only one thing very well: They keep otherwise eligible voters away from the polls. In most cases, this means voters who are poor, often minorities, and who don’t have the necessary documents or the money or time to get photo IDs.
In her remarkable 143-page opinion in the Texas case, Federal District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found that the law violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the Voting Rights Act, and that by forcing registered voters to track down and pay for qualifying documents, it functioned as an “unconstitutional poll tax.”
Most striking of all, Judge Ramos found that the rapid growth of Texas’s Latino and black population, and the state’s “uncontroverted and shameful history” of discriminatory voting practices — including whites-only primaries, literacy restrictions and actual poll taxes — led to a clear conclusion: Republican lawmakers knew the law would drive down turnout among minority voters, who lean Democratic, and they passed it at least in part for that reason. Judge Ramos’s finding of intentional discrimination is important because it could force Texas back under federal voting supervision, meaning changes to state voting practices would have to be preapproved by the federal government. (Texas appealed the ruling; a federal appeals court is now considering whether to put it on hold until after the election.)
[...]
Let's also not forget this gem from a Republican lawmaker in the state of Pennsylvania who was mentioned earlier in the thread:
And man, he was right! Wait a minute. And I always trust the NYT editorial board when it comes to information about Republicans. Pretty unbiased obviously.
But this issue isn't near the top of my list, it's just annoying that every time it's brought up people are whining about widespread suppression when most of these laws, if not all, are perfectly fine.
The point isn't whether Romney ended up winning the state (and by the way, I think the application of the law was blocked before the 2012 election by a court decision), it's that the intent behind the voter id law was clearly to reduce the amount of Democratic votes. Surely you cannot be this oblivious?
If you don't trust the NYT editorial, what about the reports they reference which show (1) voter fraud is a complete non-issue and (2) these voter id laws, which are passed to fix a problem which does not actually exist, reduce turnout by millions of voters?
No, that's not clearly the intent, any more than the clear reason Dems oppose voter ID laws is to increase turnout for their own base. If either were true, it would actually happen. But, the actual effect of voter ID laws depends on who you ask, and so far as I'm aware it hasn't changed a single election result either way. And as these laws grow older and more well known, more fewer people will be caught off guard.
When you use the phrase "millions of voters" it becomes obvious you are in the realm of hyperbole.
But so far as we know, there isn't a lot of voter fraud, so the issue is low on my list of concerns.
I do know the real reason. Even the BS reason doesn't have anything to do with Voter ID...? If you're thinking costs are the reason for the shift in voting times you are ignoring that Voter ID (a solution to a problem we don't have) isn't free either.
If you asked the people waiting in line for hours to vote whether they want a law requiring an ID to resolve a problem they aren't having and money budgeted to make it happen OR..... Getting additional voting resources so they weren't in line for hours (like their whiter more well-off neighbor districts) I think it's pretty obvious they would choose not having to wait in line.
However if you asked Republican lawmakers whether they would rather spend time and resources on needless Voter ID laws or making sure people don't have to wait hours to vote, they overwhelmingly and obviously chose Voter ID.
The intention and the results were/are to marginalize some peoples rights/participation. A thread seen running through many issues.
EPT
