• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WI, AR, PA voter ID laws ruled unconstitutional

Sorry man, but this is a bad decision. I wouldn't equate requiring free identification with being "classist" and resent the idea that people who support voter ID laws are racists out to suppress votes. Certainly there's an element of that in some areas. But in 2014 the arguments that those in rural areas or the poor lack documentation for getting ID really begs the question. They're prime targets for identity theft and other forms of financial fraud. The right to vote is absolutely guaranteed in the Constitution. However, it's your right to vote as an American citizen- how do you prove your citizenship? The upside to identity verification outweighs the imposition it places on an increasingly dwindling population with comparably lower turn-out rates who lack even the most basic personal documentation. I know you're going to get all frothy over it so let me just say I don't really feel passionately about this either way. You can't cash a check without ID... that doesn't seem to be too onerous.
 
94Deac said:
I wouldn't equate requiring free identification with being "classist" and resent the idea that people who support voter ID laws are racists out to suppress votes.
Click to expand...

In a vacuum, I agree. However, when access to those ID's is harder for certain classes than others, then it becomes racist / vote supression.

Countries with mandatory ID's for voting in general provide intensive (and expensive) programs to ensure that all citizens have easy and free access to those ID's. Mexico has national voter ID's, but they have a literal task force that drives around rural and under funded areas going nearly door to door to make sure that citizens are not left out of the process.

If we're going to do voter ID's, we need to do it the whole way. Simply requiring one without providing the infrastructure to ensure we capture the entire electorate under that scheme (which nobody wants to do because it's expensive) is effectively racist/classist. That's the problem I and others have with it, not the fact of having to use a card itself.
 
vadimivich said:
In a vacuum, I agree. However, when access to those ID's is harder for certain classes than others, then it becomes racist / vote supression.

Countries with mandatory ID's for voting in general provide intensive (and expensive) programs to ensure that all citizens have easy and free access to those ID's. Mexico has national voter ID's, but they have a literal task force that drives around rural and under funded areas going nearly door to door to make sure that citizens are not left out of the process.

If we're going to do voter ID's, we need to do it the whole way. Simply requiring one without providing the infrastructure to ensure we capture the entire electorate under that scheme (which nobody wants to do because it's expensive) is effectively racist/classist. That's the problem I and others have with it, not the fact of having to use a card itself.
Click to expand...

This. Requiring ID without providing ID is so transparently partisan.
 
vadimivich said:
In a vacuum, I agree. However, when access to those ID's is harder for certain classes than others, then it becomes racist / vote supression.

Countries with mandatory ID's for voting in general provide intensive (and expensive) programs to ensure that all citizens have easy and free access to those ID's. Mexico has national voter ID's, but they have a literal task force that drives around rural and under funded areas going nearly door to door to make sure that citizens are not left out of the process.

If we're going to do voter ID's, we need to do it the whole way. Simply requiring one without providing the infrastructure to ensure we capture the entire electorate under that scheme (which nobody wants to do because it's expensive) is effectively racist/classist. That's the problem I and others have with it, not the fact of having to use a card itself.
Click to expand...

This.
 
As I understand it, all of these voter ID bills and programs explicitly require the state to provide free identification cards. I'm not aware of any state which does not have that as either a part of voter ID or as something the state already provides for other reasons, free of charge.

Again, it's unfair at best and ignorant at worst to accuse everyone who supports voter IDs as being racist or looking to disenfranchise voters. As I said, there are certainly elements of that here. But that's not where I'm coming from. Don't think I need to prove my liberality here. I'm looking at this from the POV that it's increasingly difficult to not have *some* kind of personal documentation- though, again as I said, it certainly exists. But just as voters have the right to vote there is a need to ensure the integrity of each vote. Every voter should support a system which guarantees that the vote cast in their name was truly cast by them. I don't think voter fraud is as rampant as conservatives portray but it's silly to think that it doesn't happen to some extent, regardless of why. I fully support programs which reach out to those who have limited mobility and resources but with the 1% mentality we've developed as a country I highly doubt that would happen. But conservatives need to step up to the plate and realize if that's what it takes then they have to do and support that.

But the problem is how to deal with those who do lack documentation. Birth certificates, personal records, official ID, etc. Perhaps the frequency of that is on par with the frequency of actual voter fraud. But all parties need to realize that a voting system which lacks integrity is not the exercise of democracy.
 
vadimivich said:
In a vacuum, I agree. However, when access to those ID's is harder for certain classes than others, then it becomes racist / vote supression.

Countries with mandatory ID's for voting in general provide intensive (and expensive) programs to ensure that all citizens have easy and free access to those ID's. Mexico has national voter ID's, but they have a literal task force that drives around rural and under funded areas going nearly door to door to make sure that citizens are not left out of the process.

If we're going to do voter ID's, we need to do it the whole way. Simply requiring one without providing the infrastructure to ensure we capture the entire electorate under that scheme (which nobody wants to do because it's expensive) is effectively racist/classist. That's the problem I and others have with it, not the fact of having to use a card itself.
Click to expand...

+1
 
94Deac said:
As I understand it, all of these voter ID bills and programs explicitly require the state to provide free identification cards. I'm not aware of any state which does not have that as either a part of voter ID or as something the state already provides for other reasons, free of charge.

Again, it's unfair at best and ignorant at worst to accuse everyone who supports voter IDs as being racist or looking to disenfranchise voters. As I said, there are certainly elements of that here. But that's not where I'm coming from. Don't think I need to prove my liberality here. I'm looking at this from the POV that it's increasingly difficult to not have *some* kind of personal documentation- though, again as I said, it certainly exists. But just as voters have the right to vote there is a need to ensure the integrity of each vote. Every voter should support a system which guarantees that the vote cast in their name was truly cast by them. I don't think voter fraud is as rampant as conservatives portray but it's silly to think that it doesn't happen to some extent, regardless of why. I fully support programs which reach out to those who have limited mobility and resources but with the 1% mentality we've developed as a country I highly doubt that would happen. But conservatives need to step up to the plate and realize if that's what it takes then they have to do and support that.

But the problem is how to deal with those who do lack documentation. Birth certificates, personal records, official ID, etc. Perhaps the frequency of that is on par with the frequency of actual voter fraud. But all parties need to realize that a voting system which lacks integrity is not the exercise of democracy.
Click to expand...

*rubs eyes* Pos.....rep?
 
94Deac said:
As I understand it, all of these voter ID bills and programs explicitly require the state to provide free identification cards. I'm not aware of any state which does not have that as either a part of voter ID or as something the state already provides for other reasons, free of charge.
Click to expand...

There's a dramatic difference between providing free ID, and making those free ID's easy to obtain (i.e - for rural, remote, those without cars, those who live in retirement homes, etc). Most countries with photo voter ID laws provide extensive infrastructure to make sure those types of citizens have easy access to a location (or travelling vehicle) for getting an ID.

None of the US voter ID laws have included anything resembling that, which is my major issue with them.
 
94Deac said:
I'm looking at this from the POV that it's increasingly difficult to not have *some* kind of personal documentation- though, again as I said, it certainly exists.
Click to expand...

11% of our voters don't have photo ID, and they are predominantly from very specific age/class/race backgrounds.

If we think voter ID's are important, then we need solutions to getting those voters easy access to ID's so they have them. And I don't just mean "free at the closest DMV". That's not a solution.
 
94Deac said:
As I understand it, all of these voter ID bills and programs explicitly require the state to provide free identification cards. I'm not aware of any state which does not have that as either a part of voter ID or as something the state already provides for other reasons, free of charge.

Again, it's unfair at best and ignorant at worst to accuse everyone who supports voter IDs as being racist or looking to disenfranchise voters. As I said, there are certainly elements of that here. But that's not where I'm coming from. Don't think I need to prove my liberality here. I'm looking at this from the POV that it's increasingly difficult to not have *some* kind of personal documentation- though, again as I said, it certainly exists. But just as voters have the right to vote there is a need to ensure the integrity of each vote. Every voter should support a system which guarantees that the vote cast in their name was truly cast by them. I don't think voter fraud is as rampant as conservatives portray but it's silly to think that it doesn't happen to some extent, regardless of why. I fully support programs which reach out to those who have limited mobility and resources but with the 1% mentality we've developed as a country I highly doubt that would happen. But conservatives need to step up to the plate and realize if that's what it takes then they have to do and support that.

But the problem is how to deal with those who do lack documentation. Birth certificates, personal records, official ID, etc. Perhaps the frequency of that is on par with the frequency of actual voter fraud. But all parties need to realize that a voting system which lacks integrity is not the exercise of democracy.
Click to expand...

Considering there is no voter impersonation problem, the only reason these laws exist is to suppress the vote. The vote they suppress is lower class, old and minority.

Every one of these laws has been passed by a GOP state. Every one of these law has been passed to help suppress the vote.

In a perfect world, you might have a point, but the reality is these laws are 100% to suppress the vote.
 
vadimivich said:
11% of our voters don't have photo ID, and they are predominantly from very specific age/class/race backgrounds.

If we think voter ID's are important, then we need solutions to getting those voters easy access to ID's so they have them. And I don't just mean "free at the closest DMV". That's not a solution.
Click to expand...

In TX, every county doesn't have a DMV. In many places there isn't even public transportation to get to a DMV.

Many old people Who have been voting for over half a century don't have the requisite documents to get the ID some states require.

In many of these states they are firing teachers, firemen and other needed government employees because of budgetary problems. Under what logic should they spend millions of dollars every year to solve a problem that doesn't exist?
 
vadimivich said:
11% of our voters don't have photo ID, and they are predominantly from very specific age/class/race backgrounds.

If we think voter ID's are important, then we need solutions to getting those voters easy access to ID's so they have them. And I don't just mean "free at the closest DMV". That's not a solution.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree. The distinction between "provided" and "available" is crucial. Too often politicians are careless with their words.

I just don't want this to get lost in the shuffle:
94Deac said:
But all parties need to realize that a voting system which lacks integrity is not the exercise of democracy.
Click to expand...
If you can't ensure the integrity of my vote being cast by me then the system is already broken.

RJ: you're again using too many superlatives and absolutes. "100%," "doesn't exist..." Your argument is more compelling when you avoid the absolutes.
 
Last edited:
The Attorney General of PA (one of the states who has a draconian law) stated under oath that he had NEVER seen a case of voter impersonation in PA and that he didn't expect a case to EVER happen.

He said this under oath. Not my words, his.

In FL the former chairman of the state GOP stated to the papers that the reason for their law was to keep blacks and Hispanics from voting. Again his words not mine.

In PA, the Speaker of the House stated the reason for their law was to help Mitt Romney win PA. Again his broadcasted words not mine.

The State of MN did a study stating they could find no cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Again their results not mine.

W's DOJdid a ten year study proving these facts.

How many more sets of evidence do you need?

There is no "lack of integrity" in our system. That's an absolute myth contrived by the liars of the GOP.
 
"Never happened." Mighty absolute. So let me ask you this: do we wait for it to happen? Virtually every other transaction in typical American life is driven by some form of identification verification. Reaction > proaction? It's similar to the death penalty. Some vehemently maintain that we've never executed an innocent person. How do you know? At what point is the system set up to verify that? If someone is voting in the name of a person long since dead, how do we discover that? Why not move towards a system that protects the integrity of the voting process BEFORE- to play devil's advocate- it happens.

Surely you're not contending that elections are so irrelevant and unimportant that a political machine or candidate wouldn't consider doing something like that.
 
94Deac said:
Your argument is more compelling when you avoid the absolutes.
Click to expand...

Does not compute......

I think I actually agree 100% with 94. Provide access to free ID's (make it easily/readily available to obtain one). Ensure the integrity of the system. If there are ways to cheat, someone is going to exploit it...especially politicians/political parties.

I don't care if you can get your ID the day of the vote. Have an ID center set up next to the voting poll. Go get your ID made for free, and then go vote. Once you have your ID you are set for the next 5-10 years, and won't have to go through the hassle. There area number of common sense solutions to this problem. It seems silly that is argument continually arises when the issue is not that difficult. Don't make it hard for people to vote + ensure the integrity of the system. This isn't rocket science. I live in one of the most rural places in America. My hometown is 15,000, and I farm in a county that literally has ZERO stoplights.....let me repeat that. There is not one single red light / yellow light / green light in the entire county. Many residents have limited transportation. However, without fail I see them 30 miles away at the local Walmart buying home goods and food. I can't fathom a legitimate excuse for not obtaining an ID once every 15,000-30,000 days of our life if it is made available and free.
 
There is no way not to disenfranchise 1000s of times people than you prevent from committing a crime that doesn't exist.

We could solve this non-existent problem by having a very simple system of having either a fingerprint when sign in or very inexpensive computer camera at each polling place. Make the penalty for voter impersonation 10 years without the possibility of parole and $1,000,000 fine.
 
Last edited:
RJ, I'm trying (for once) to actually have a non-baiting, non-flaming discussion. Your rhetoric is pretty clear, as usual, that you're not interested in that. And that's cool. To each his own. But you'd do well in general to just avoid the "always, never, impossible, none, every" bullshit. And accusing me of being brainwashed by the GOP is just fucking stupid and painfully ignorant. Carry on.
 
As to the concept of signing up for voting the same day, almost every one of the states that have passed these voter suppression laws has made that illegal.

Further, almost every one of those states have cut down the number of polling places and the number of hours to vote as part of these classist, ageist, racist laws. given this fact, how on Earth could people sign up on election day and vote?
 
94Deac said:
RJ, I'm trying (for once) to actually have a non-baiting, non-flaming discussion. Your rhetoric is pretty clear, as usual, that you're not interested in that. And that's cool. To each his own. But you'd do well in general to just avoid the "always, never, impossible, none, every" bullshit. And accusing me of being brainwashed by the GOP is just fucking stupid and painfully ignorant. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I took off those parts.

We have hard core, under oath evidence here. This isn't a theory. We have evidence that has been given under oath. Why do you keep talking about something that "might" happen versus something that would disenfranchise 11% of the voters?

How about this for a question- let's assume that in a state like NC there is a crime wave of voter impersonation and five people out of 3,000,000 that vote get caught doing it. You'd to have to provide IDs for 330,000 people.

You would harm hundreds of thousands of people and spend millions of dollars for the "possibility" that someone "might" commit a crime that the state hasn't prosecuted in decades.

It doesn't make sense.

Why not do the cost-effective concept that I provided? I'll do it again:

At each polling place, there are cameras (there should be anyway).

When you sign in to vote, you give a fingerprint and sign with the time you are voting.

There is a federal statute that carries the penalties of a mandatory ten year non-parolable sentence and non-negotiable $1,000,000 fine.

This would cost less.

There's something else you never address. If there are that many IDs out there to vote, I think it's more reasonable to believe there will be more fake IDs than fake people showing up to vote. You can buy fake IDs on the internet this minute. What makes you think that won't happen rendering your solution valueless?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top