US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7685

On May 31 2017 01:52 zlefin wrote:

which kind of allergy meds? sudafed i'd guess? those rules make a lot of sense; pretty clear need in that case.

On May 31 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:

I am sure the laws would be very different if we could only buy allergy meds one day out of the year.

On May 31 2017 02:01 zlefin wrote:

I don't see how that would relate to the specific regulations requiring ID for getting sudafed. nor do I see why they'd change even if sudafed was only occasionally on sale.

On May 31 2017 01:57 KwarK wrote:

Closed primaries aren't anything to do with the government. A party is a private organization run by its members. They can let non citizens etc vote in the primary if it pleases them. There's no reason for the state to be involved in that.

On May 31 2017 01:52 zlefin wrote:

which kind of allergy meds? sudafed i'd guess? those rules make a lot of sense; pretty clear need in that case.

On May 31 2017 01:59 Danglars wrote:

It was a law on the books for the 2014 election and turnout increased. It wasn't struck down before implementation.

On May 31 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:

Allergies very important for ID, citizen core interaction with their governance ... eh who cares? It's not the by-the-book argument, just an observation at the vast number of things that require ID and aren't generally considered racist policies.

On May 31 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:

Allergies very important for ID, citizen core interaction with their governance ... eh who cares? It's not the by-the-book argument, just an observation at the vast number of things that require ID and aren't generally considered racist policies.

On May 31 2017 01:29 jcarlsoniv wrote:


And I don't personally have any issue with requiring a voting ID to do so. I totally get the argument - ID helps verify right to vote and that you aren't voting more than once (assuming that's logged upon your vote).

I just feel like if it's required in order to participate in your civic duty, then it should also be provided/facilitated in a way that's convenient for all to do so. When it's restricted in any way, doesn't that kind of directly create a "taxation without representation" situation?

On May 31 2017 02:09 KwarK wrote:

Don't pretend to be stupid. The ID restriction for sudafed isn't about allergies, it's about the manufacture of methamphetamine.

On May 31 2017 02:12 Danglars wrote:

That's why I'm in favor for free (taxpayer subsidized) photo IDs and registration drives to homeless communities/urban areas that might not have the means or knowledge to get to a government office themselves. No big restrictions or long forms. I encountered more pushback than I imagined (you can ask xDaunt if he did expect it) last time this topic was raised.

On May 31 2017 02:15 Danglars wrote:

Voting isn't just about neighborhood dog catcher, it's also for the president of the United States, the commander in chief of our armed forces. Don't pretend to be stupid. Vast areas of our daily life are impacted by the requirement of photo IDs, despite your deflections and assertions.

On May 31 2017 02:15 ZeromuS wrote:


I totally accept any individual who supports providing ID to as many people as possible by making it free. While I think access is more than cost, if you can make it easy and free to get to the point at which pretty much everyone has one, then yes. At that point ID requirements can be expanded. But not before. Definitely not before.

On May 31 2017 02:07 Danglars wrote:

Allergies very important for ID, citizen core interaction with their governance ... eh who cares? It's not the by-the-book argument, just an observation at the vast number of things that require ID and aren't generally considered racist policies.

This year, 25 states and the District of Columbia are considering measures that would bar employers from asking job candidates about their prior salary. Last year, two states — California and Massachusetts — adopted similar policies, aimed at trying to narrow the pay gap for women and minorities.

Such measures are designed to help people like Aileen Rizo. She was four years into her job as a math teaching consultant for Fresno County, Calif., when she found out, in 2012, that a new male hire with less education and experience was offered a salary roughly 20 percent more than she was making.

Rizo was stunned.

"I kind of knew that I had broken stereotypes, as a mathematician, and as the only full-time woman in that department," as well as being a Latina minority, she says. "But then to find out that you're getting paid less than all of your male counterparts — that they all started much higher salary steps then you did — is just ... devastating."

Rizo complained to human resources, assuming the problem would be ironed out. Instead, she was told her salary was set based on previous pay — and that her salary would not be adjusted. She says she was shocked and felt locked in.

"I couldn't educate myself out of being paid less, I couldn't get more experience or be in the job market longer to break that cycle," she says. "Because low wages will follow you wherever you go as long as someone keeps asking you how much you were paid."

Rizo filed suit, arguing her employer violated the Equal Pay Act, the 1963 law aimed at abolishing wage discrimination based on gender.

"I have three young daughters, and I don't want them ever to feel that way," she says, her voice cracking.

Rizo prevailed in lower court, but last month the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that ruling. Now, she's considering an appeal to the Supreme Court.

"After the 9th Circuit decision, I felt like now it's black and white ... you can pay a woman less," she says. "I don't want that to be the end of the story."

In the years since Rizo filed her case, states and cities have been passing laws banning employers from asking about previous salaries. Last year, Massachusetts and California became the first states to do so. New York City adopted a similar law, and Philadelphia's ordinance is temporarily stayed pending litigation.

Most of the measures have yet to take effect, so there is no data to show what effect they've had.

"The problem with proving the efficacy of public policy that hasn't been tried before is that it hasn't been tried before so no one can research it," says Kevin Miller, a researcher at the American Association of University Women. In a 2013 report looking at Department of Education data, his group found that women make 7 percent less than men a year out of college, even after controlling for variables such education, college major, occupation, industry and hours worked.

Miller says that gap tends to compound with age, and is bigger for minorities — although the disparity is less where salaries are set by union or government rules.

"When you have more room to maneuver and more room to negotiate, I think that's where you see bias come in," he says.

Rizo's case prompted congressional delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., to introduce federal legislation banning employers from asking about prior salary information. She points to data that show even highly professional women such as doctors and lawyers start out earning less.

"That means, for the rest of their career, they will carry a lower wage," she says.

Holmes says her bill has support from only Democrats, but she's hoping to build broader support over time.