US Voting Rules & ID Requirements

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

So you think the US Supreme Court in its Ruling not to hear the Texas case are wrong?

I'm not an American lawyer. I used Texas because it was quiet famous for this.

Deleted User wrote: »

You're still going around the issue.

Do you honestly not think that for the set of people "suppressed" that them not voting doesn't directly benefit the Republicans? Forget about intent or implied laziness or anything else, of all those laws do you genuinely need to see a "compelling argument" that it benefits the Republicans over the Democrats?

I'm not skirting the issue. I'm questioning it's very existence and arguing that even if it does exist, it's an pretty easy hurdle to get over. $25 fees are within reach of anyone.

Telling me that 25% of black people don't have ID isn't a compelling argument, or one at all. It's just a percentage. If Republicans benefit from black people not bothering to get an ID, then the answer to that shouldn't be to compromise the security of the voting system in the hopes that a few of them with make it to a polling booth.


Pew Research estimated that 1.6 million illegal immigrants lived in Texas in 2014. Considering that the state's total votes was just over 8 million, that's a disproportionately high number of aliens vs. total votes.

To compare to Ireland, that would be like having 400,000 illegal immigrants here, most of whom would vote for a certain party, and then saying that because a percentage of a percentage of our population don't have IDs, we should just do away with the requirement. That's ignoring other basic scams like citizens voting multiple times for family members or dead people in other polling stations, if you know they won't vote.


The common thread of thought I see everywhere when I'm looking up the reasons for this lack of IDs, is that they don't have much use for them. But voting is a use for them, so go get one. Nothing is really stopping them.

demfad

Not sure if this was reported already:

Dutch intelligence hacked into the Russian hacking group Cosy bear in 2014:

Over the course of a few months, they saw how the Russians penetrated several U.S. institutions, including the State Department, the White House, and the DNC. On all these occasions, the Dutch alerted the U.S. intelligence services, Dutch tv programme Nieuwsuur and de Volkskrant, a prominent newspaper in The Netherlands, jointly report on Thursday. This account is based on interviews with a dozen political, diplomatic and intelligence sources in The Netherlands and the U.S. with direct knowledge of the matter. None of them wanted to speak on the record, given the classified details of the matter.

So it was not crowdstrike who spotted that Russian Intel it was Dutch Intelligence. US Intel could not say this as it would compromise the Dutch operation. These is verification, outside the US that the Russians hacked the DNC server.

Unfortunately their cover was blown in 2017:

As of now, the AIVD hackers do not seem to have access to Cozy Bear any longer. Sources suggest that the openness of US intelligence sources, who in 2017 praised the help of a Western ally in news stories, may have ruined their operation. The openness caused great anger in The Hague and Zoetermeer. In the television programme College Tour, this month, AIVD director Bertholee stated that he is extra careful when it comes to sharing intelligence with the U.S., now that Donald Trump is President.

The Dutch here are de facto saying that Trump is a Russian asset who blew their cover.

The reason all of this is not bigger news is that the Trump/Mercer/Putin/Wikileaks/Fox news disinformation and propaganda amplification machine (in conjunction with gullible MSM) has succeeded in drowning out real news.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm not an American lawyer. I used Texas because it was quiet famous for this.


I'm not skirting the issue. I'm questioning it's very existence and arguing that even if it does exist, it's an pretty easy hurdle to get over. $25 fees are within reach of anyone.

Telling me that 25% of black people don't have ID isn't a compelling argument, or one at all. It's just a percentage. If Republicans benefit from black people not bothering to get an ID, then the answer to that shouldn't be to compromise the security of the voting system in the hopes that a few of them with make it to a polling booth.


Pew Research estimated that 1.6 million illegal immigrants lived in Texas in 2014. Considering that the state's total votes was just over 8 million, that's a disproportionately high number of aliens vs. total votes.

To compare to Ireland, that would be like having 400,000 illegal immigrants here, most of whom would vote for a certain party, and then saying that because a percentage of a percentage of our population don't have IDs, we should just do away with the requirement. That's ignoring other basic scams like citizens voting multiple times for family members or dead people in other polling stations, if you know they won't vote.


The common thread of thought I see everywhere when I'm looking up the reasons for this lack of IDs, is that they don't have much use for them. But voting is a use for them, so go get one. Nothing is really stopping them.

You are ignoring the real issue. No one is saying you can’t introdce ID requirement or any rule you want the courts have said so what can’t be done is introduce a rule that’s effect is to stop a particular group from voting. It does not matter that the person can get the ID what matters is the effect.

So again the Texas District Court decided the law in Texas was for that effect the Federal Circuit court agreed so rightly a law was struck down. Do you think that decision was correct simple yes or no answer if you think it was right then you agree with me if you think it was wrong then you agree that a law can as it’s can disenfranchise a particular group more than another, so why do you think that’s ok?

Leroy42

But now AbG, you are mixing up illegal immigrants with voting ID. No one is claiming that anybody should just be able to walk in and cast a vote. They still need to be on the register and need to be legal to do that.

What is being discussed is whether the GOP are using the same type of argument that you have, ie we need to ensure no illegals vote, as a excuse to make registering and voting increasingly difficult which is markedly more difficult for certain sections of society.

Where I do agree with you is that claiming 25% can't vote menas 75% can and therefore we need to look at how the white voters are getting registered and the 75% of black of getting registered but not he 25%.

Is it solely down to suppression (links have been posted to show that there is evidence of this) or does it also involve a lack of engagement on their part (my theory). My view is that each citizen has a responsibility to make sure they have a vote (or that is the law) and should be prepared to invest (be that time or money) to ensure they exercise that right..

You can bet that, except in the most extreme cases, these people spend money on beer, cigarettes, football, guns, cars, or whatever. Making a choice to forgo some of these things to ensure you have a voice is not exactly a major sacrifice.

That brings me to the next point, that even if they do register, they feel it is pointless as things won't change and in that respect, despite what the DNC might claim, they aren't really interested in changing the system. It is just that the GOP are far more ruthless in driving through the advantage.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

You are ignoring the real issue. No one is saying you can’t introdce ID requirement or any rule you want the courts have said so what can’t be done is introduce a rule that’s effect is to stop a particular group from voting. It does not matter that the person can get the ID what matters is the effect.

So again the Texas District Court decided the law in Texas was for that effect the Federal Circuit court agreed so rightly a law was struck down. Do you think that decision was correct simple yes or no answer if you think it was right then you agree with me if you think it was wrong then you agree that a law can as it’s can disenfranchise a particular group more than another, so why do you think that’s ok?

So my two options are agreeing with you or making a statement that I'm a bad person?

My third option where I think protecting the legitimacy of the vote, in a system where everyone can get an ID the same as the next person, just disappeared.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But now AbG, you are mixing up illegal immigrants with voting ID. No one is claiming that anybody should just be able to walk in and cast a vote. They still need to be on the register and need to be legal to do that.

What is being discussed is whether the GOP are using the same type of argument that you have, ie we need to ensure no illegals vote, as a excuse to make registering and voting increasingly difficult which is markedly more difficult for certain sections of society.

Where I do agree with you is that claiming 25% can't vote menas 75% can and therefore we need to look at how the white voters are getting registered and the 75% of black of getting registered but not he 25%.

Is it solely down to suppression (links have been posted to show that there is evidence of this) or does it also involve a lack of engagement on their part (my theory). My view is that each citizen has a responsibility to make sure they have a vote (or that is the law) and should be prepared to invest (be that time or money) to ensure they exercise that right..

You can bet that, except in the most extreme cases, these people spend money on beer, cigarettes, football, guns, cars, or whatever. Making a choice to forgo some of these things to ensure you have a voice is not exactly a major sacrifice.

That brings me to the next point, that even if they do register, they feel it is pointless as things won't change and in that respect, despite what the DNC might claim, they aren't really interested in changing the system. It is just that the GOP are far more ruthless in driving through the advantage.

I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped.


And I'm not some conspiracy loon for knowing what people said in those Project Veritas videos where voter fraud is being discussed. While the editing sucks, they did say those things.

The first 25 seconds of this video is uncut and describes voter fraud. You can hate O'Keefe and you can call him a hack, but you cannot tell me that those 25 seconds should be ignored because of who made it or who it was trying to aid / attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

If you have an issue with those 25 seconds, or think they're nonsense, please explain why.

That video as an important official saying people get bussed around from polling station to polling station. I just find it frankly ridiculous to argue against ID because a segment of the population doesn't bother getting one. Fraud exists and allowing it a willful affront to democracy.

Deleted User

The first thing you said was:

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.

So while those impacted by the voter ID laws all skew Democrat you still need a "compelling argument" that the Republicans benefit by making it harder for those groups to vote.

Simple question, if you take the people affected by the voter ID laws and break them down into whether they're likely to vote Democrat or Republican, what would you think?

You made a laughable point right at the start and are now changing it completely. Republicans benefit at the poll from the voter ID laws. It's clear and obvious. If you wish to talk about the principle of the laws or anything else that's a separate issue.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The first thing you said was:

So while those impacted by the voter ID laws all skew Democrat you still need a "compelling argument" that the Republicans benefit by making it harder for those groups to vote.

Simple question, if you take the people affected by the voter ID laws and break them down into whether they're likely to vote Democrat or Republican, what would you think?

You made a laughable point right at the start and are now changing it completely. Republicans benefit at the poll from the voter ID laws. It's clear and obvious. If you wish to talk about the principle of the laws or anything else that's a separate issue.

Fine, I'll change my opener.

I'm yet to hear a compelling reason for why Republicans shouldn't benefit from Democrats' laziness. If your voters aren't going out and getting the required IDs, that's not the other party's fault.

GLaDOS

ID should be mandatory for voting. I'd like to see it enforced more rigorously in Ireland.

If the type of ID is too restrictive, or if it's too expensive/inconvenient to get the ID, then they are the issues that should be addressed, not the need for ID in itself.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, I'll change my opener.

I'm yet to hear a compelling reason for why Republicans shouldn't benefit from Democrats' laziness. If your voters aren't going out and getting the required IDs, that's not the other party's fault.

And if they have that ID then you should change it to one more difficult to get.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So my two options are agreeing with you or making a statement that I'm a bad person?

My third option where I think protecting the legitimacy of the vote, in a system where everyone can get an ID the same as the next person, just disappeared.



I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped.


And I'm not some conspiracy loon for knowing what people said in those Project Veritas videos where voter fraud is being discussed. While the editing sucks, they did say those things.

The first 25 seconds of this video is uncut and describes voter fraud. You can hate O'Keefe and you can call him a hack, but you cannot tell me that those 25 seconds should be ignored because of who made it or who it was trying to aid / attack.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0

If you have an issue with those 25 seconds, or think they're nonsense, please explain why.

That video as an important official saying people get bussed around from polling station to polling station. I just find it frankly ridiculous to argue against ID because a segment of the population doesn't bother getting one. Fraud exists and allowing it a willful affront to democracy.

Your claimed third option is in reality the first option.

Do you think a law that’s intention is to reduce certain groups from voting is a good thing.

You are just ignoring the courts their finding and coming up with your own claims.

Have I argued against ID? Have the Courts you are deliberately mixing up two different issues. It’s really simple any state can introduce any laws once’s those voting laws are not in breach of the constitution. Because the US constitution and federal laws are different to say Ireland a law that in Ireland would be ok would not be so in USA.

And yes if you want to introduce laws which have a race bias in the law as drafted then yup you are a bad person in my opinion. If you want a law that is fair then that is good.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And if they have that ID then you should change it to one more difficult to get.

I posted Texas's accepted IDs a few pages back. Looked perfectly reasonable to me.

Certainly reasonable enough that a signed declaration and a utility bill shouldn't be an alternative. My brothers have zero interest in politics. I shouldn't be able to register them and use their vote. I'd have 4 votes instead of 1 in Ireland if we got rid of the ID requirement.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

Your claimed third option is in reality the first option.

Do you think a law that’s intention is to reduce certain groups from voting is a good thing.

You are just ignoring the courts their finding and coming up with your own claims.

Have I argued against ID? Have the Courts you are deliberately mixing up two different issues. It’s really simple any state can introduce any laws once’s those voting laws are not in breach of the constitution. Because the US constitution and federal laws are different to say Ireland a law that in Ireland would be ok would not be so in USA.

And yes if you want to introduce laws which have a race bias in the law as drafted then yup you are a bad person in my opinion. If you want a law that is fair then that is good.

I am arguing the requirement for IDs in general. What some court decided is irrelevant to the larger debate.

Really Interested

GLaDOS wrote: »

ID should be mandatory for voting. I'd like to see it enforced more rigorously in Ireland.

If the type of ID is too restrictive, or if it's too expensive/inconvenient to get the ID, then they are the issues that should be addressed, not the need for ID in itself.

No problem with that, but say the USA only accepted ID that say 90% of adult men carried and only 10% of women would that be ok. That the problem with for example gun permits allowed (more Republicans) but not College ID (maybe in some states more Dems) why should a person who has state college ID be forced to get a driving licence or gun permit?

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I am arguing the requirement for IDs in general. What some court decided is irrelevant to the larger debate.

Did I say that I am against ID? I’ll make it easy I did not. All I said is I am against any law that has a built in bias.

By all means make it mandatory to produce ID but accept all ID and do not have arbitrary rules that change.

“I'm yet to hear a compelling argument about why voter ID laws benefit the Republicans.”

Your very first statement I provided a link to a case where that was actually proved at Dostrict Court and Circuit Court level. So either you never heard of the cases or you ignored them.


So is you first statement still what you believe.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not mixing anything up.. I mentioned fraud from citizens which is widespread enough that it should be stopped,

In Iowa, lawmakers passed a strict voter ID law with the potential to disenfranchise 260,000 voters. Out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa in 2016, there were only 10 allegations of voter fraud; none were cases of impersonation that a voter ID law could have prevented. Only one person, a Republican voter, was convicted. Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, the architect of the bill, admitted, "We've not experienced widespread voter fraud in Iowa."

In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.[78] A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.

In July 2016, a federal appeals court found that Texas's voter ID law discriminated against black and Hispanic voters because only a few types of ID were allowed; for example, military IDs and concealed carry permits were allowed, but state employee photo IDs and university photo IDs were not.

Since 1994, Ohio has had a policy of purging infrequent voters from the rolls. In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed, challenging this policy on the grounds that it violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002. In June, the federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and entered a preliminary injunction applicable only to the November 2016 election. The preliminary injunction was upheld in September by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had it not been upheld, thousands of voters would have been purged from the rolls just a few weeks before the election.[

An ID law in North Dakota which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans was overturned in July 2016. The judge wrote, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."

In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable. In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns. On May 15, 2017, the law officially died when the US Supreme Court rejected efforts to review the Appeals Court ruling.

Those are real examples on how your ID laws have been struck down as illegal but let's return to the question of illegal votes that you think is such a big problem:

The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”

That is from New York University School of Law but clearly must be false news since "we know" there were 5 million illegal voters according to Trump.

Then there's this by Justin Levitt, a professor at the Loyola Law School, Los Angeles and an expert in constitutional law and the law of democracy:

A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.

That's 31 fraud causes out of 1 billion ballot votes; oh my freaking God that's clearly a case to implement ID cards right there!!1

Then let's look at the 2016 election with a whopping total of 4 cases found:

A man in Texas who voted twice. Phillip Cook was arrested on Election Day after voting twice. He claimed to be an employee of Trump's campaign who was testing the security of the electoral system. He wasn't an employee of the campaign — and the polling location's security worked perfectly well, it seems.

A woman who cast a ballot on behalf of her dead husband. Audrey Cook is a Republican election judge in Illinois. She and her husband applied for absentee ballots because he was ill. He died before completing his, so she filled it out for him and sent it in. The ballot will not be counted.

A woman in Florida who marked absentee ballots. Gladys Coego was hired to open absentee ballots in Miami-Dade County. One of her co-workers noticed that she was going a step further, filling in the bubble for a mayoral candidate with a pen she had in her purse. She was caught in the act and arrested. There's no evidence that she changed any presidential votes.

Hmm, 3 out of 4 fraud cases were done by Republicans and not some rapist murder from Mexico, how odd...

I mean I can keep going if you want but not only is there no actual documented cases for major fraud from a reputable source (and no Veritas is not a reputable source since they are known for recutting things to fit their false narrative and have been caught multiple times doing so) the ID laws implemented hurt a specific demographic group of voters who are more likely to vote for one party over the other.

I don't know why you think there would be accurate numbers for something next to impossible to detect.

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.


Well it seems to no one is really in that much agreement.

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

Really Interested thinks voter ID laws are ok, if they are enacted without predudice or in bad faith.

Nody thinks there shouldn't be voter ID requirements because the reported numbers of fraud are so low.



Maybe we should just talk about something else.

spacecoyote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHFOwlMCdto

A bit of John Oliver on the hot topic of the day.

I think that a lot of people talking about this here today & dismissing the issue need to take a step back from their position of real privilege. Like me, you've likely never had an issue casting a vote in your life, and are proud of having that privilege.

The likelihood is you're probably living comfortably, have no real financial/socioeconomic/racial issues to deal with, because chances are, most of the people on here, are Irish born, white, living in Ireland. Most of us don't really know what its like to be in a minority or have had what feel like basic rights taken away from us.

We can say, $25 is nothing to anyone, but to some people, $25 could be the difference between your kids eating this week or not. Its a dismissive attitude, and not really a fair statement to make.

And to say, the fault lies with the lazy democrats for not getting their people out is just pure ignorance in the face of the issue at hand.

I know that we're all influenced massively by the bias that's built in to us since the day we're born. We need to try harder to look beyond those bias though & get to the heart of an issue.

If the aim is for a fair & democratic system then the aim should be to make it as easy as possible for people to access their right to vote, not create laws & systems to marginalise any group to fit the needs of a particular group.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't know why you think there would be accurate numbers for something next to impossible to detect.

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.


Well it seems to no one is really in that much agreement.

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

Really Interested thinks voter ID laws are ok, if they are enacted without predudice or in bad faith.

Nody thinks there shouldn't be voter ID requirements because the reported numbers of fraud are so low.



Maybe we should just talk about something else.

What about the person who bothers but the state keeps changing the law to stop them because they are black is that ok in your book? As long as it stops some possible fraud. Funny the law makers don’t think withe people would be involved in fraud!

If your country is the biggest and richest in the world, and enough of your population can't afford $25 for an ID card that it has to be removed as a requirement, then your country's problems must be a lot more severe than voting laws.

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

What about the person who bothers but the state keeps changing the law to stop them because they are black is that ok in your book? As long as it stops some possible fraud. Funny the law makers don’t think withe people would be involved in fraud!

Has that been happening recently?

You mentioned university / gun IDs above.. Did that happen in a state?



Edit: I guess the federal government should set definite requirements so state legislators can't do this sort of thing.

Manach

@spacecoyote An emotive speech and bonus points for the emotive progressive guilt trip, but taking one's talking points for a fellow progressive comedian does not take from the fact that a vast majority of countries (of various socio-economic) have some form of voter id.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If your country is the biggest and richest in the world, and enough of your population can't afford $25 for an ID card that it has to be removed as a requirement, then your country's problems must be a lot more severe than voting laws.

A whole city is killing its people with its water, millions can not afford health care 45 million Americans are below the poverty line, yes America is Fvcked and getting more so. By the rich who either stop the poor voting or trick them into voting against their own interest.

Why do you think Russia want a weaker USA and EU?

What ID card cost $25 and why should a person with a wallet full of ID have to get another one?

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

A whole city is killing its people with its water, millions can not afford health care 45 million Americans are below the poverty line, yes America is Fvcked and getting more so. By the rich who either stop the poor voting or trick them into voting against their own interest.

Why do you think Russia want a weaker USA and EU?

What ID card cost $25 and why should a person with a wallet full of ID have to get another one?

Since I used Texas as an example at the start, I've been using their price. Altho I think $25 was an old price.. It looks like that page says $16.

Edit: The official site: https://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/fees.htm

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know why you think there would be accurate numbers for something next to impossible to detect.

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.

If it is impossible to detect how come it did not suddenly sky rocket in people caught after the ID laws were implemented then if they are so effective to stop the voter fraud? Also can you show a single vote lost with a 0.0025% margin? No? So to paraphrase your position then you say it's ok to implement racist laws due to a problem which can't be measured even after ID laws are implemented because it exist out there somehow anyway? Great argument; the problem exist, laws are implemented but nothing changes but the problem is still out there somehow to justify the racist laws to remain anyway even if they do nothing to prevent the stated problem.

spacecoyote

Deleted User wrote: »

And even your 0.0003% to 0.0025% numbers give between 30k and 350k votes in America which would be enough to swing the election, as I kept hearing about.

Sorry, but how does 0.0003% - 0.0025% make 30k-350k. I don't know the exact size of the US eligible voters list, but say, its 150,000,000 that gives a range of 450- 3,750 votes

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Has that been happening recently?

You mentioned university / gun IDs above.. Did that happen in a state?



Edit: I guess the federal government should set definite requirements so state legislators can't do this sort of thing.

Yes it happened in Texas you know that case you said has nothing to do with anything.

http://progresstexas.org/blog/stricken-texas-voter-id-law-allowed-gun-licenses-not-student-id

Many Republicans and others would not be in favour of a Federal system as that would violate states rights the USA is not like Ireland.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

If it is impossible to detect how come it did not suddenly sky rocket after the ID laws were implemented then if they are so effective? Also can you show a single vote lost with a 0.0025% margin? No? So to paraphrase your position then you say it's ok to implement racist laws due to a problem which can't be measured even after ID laws are implemented because it exist out there somehow anyway? Great argument; the problem exist, laws are implemented but nothing changes but the problem is still out there somehow to justify the racist laws to remain anyway.

Don't even dare try to paraphrase me into a racist. Lazy hack.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

It's very hard to see this other than an extremely dickish point of view.

Your argument is that if a legislature passes laws that make it harder for some classes of people to vote, and if those people don't put in the extra effort to vote as a result, then they only have themselves to blame.

But hey, as you said yourself: you're not going to change your mind.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't even dare try to paraphrase me into a racist. Lazy hack.

I'm only quoting your own posts; or did you forget you posted this only a few posts up that you're fine with racist laws?

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there should be voter ID laws, and even if they were implemented with malicious intent, if they work because black people don't bother getting ID, then too bad.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Since I used Texas as an example at the start, I've been using their price. Altho I think $25 was an old price.. It looks like that page says $16.

Edit: The official site: https://www.dps.texas.gov/DriverLicense/fees.htm

$16 is a under 18 driving licence no good fo a voter. Also the driving licence requires the person to pass a eye test and driving test. So it’s not just $25 it’s dollar plus two tests plus time and the Texas case it was proved in courts the law as drafted was to help the Republicans.