US Voting Rules & ID Requirements

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.

spacecoyote

Manach wrote: »

@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.

To be honest with you, I'm not opposed to some sort of voter ID myself. I think that people should have to identify themselves with a legitimate proof of who they are.

I've no issues with that at all. The polling centre I attend does actually ask for ID when you arrive at it, and I'm very comfortable with that.

My argument is really against there being a system that claims to be a democracy, but is really more of an Orwellian Animal Farm style of democracy.

Really Interested

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

You wonder why a person despite been given evidence that a law was racist still thinks it’s ok to have that racist law but o sir no not a racist. Is not the support of a racist law not the very definition.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

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.

Whatever was going through the mind of the person who enacted the law is irrelevant, if the end result is the same. How is it dickish? It's pragmatic if anything.

"We need to protect the legitimacy of the vote. Let's make ID mandatory."

has the same result as

"Black people vote for Democrats. Let's make ID mandatory because 25% of black voters don't have ID."


A few of us have made arguments here that getting a state ID in order to vote is a pretty low requirement, which is why 75% of black people meet it. I still haven't been given a good reason for why the integrity of the vote should be forfeited because of the other 25%.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever was going through the mind of the person who enacted the law is irrelevant, if the end result is the same. How is it dickish? It's pragmatic if anything.

"We need to protect the legitimacy of the vote. Let's make ID mandatory."

has the same result as

"Black people vote for Democrats. Let's make ID mandatory because 25% of black voters don't have ID."


A few of us have made arguments here that getting a state ID in order to vote is a pretty low requirement, which is why 75% of black people meet it. I still haven't been given a good reason for why the integrity of the vote should be forfeited because of the other 25%.

You said “malicious intent,” so the malicious intent in Texas was to stop Latinos or blacks or dems from voting. Even though many states have passed laws that had no issue you have stated your support for the malious laws enacted with racist intent.

Who other that you said the vote should be forfeited? You are making stuff up as you have since the start.

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

A few of us have made arguments here that getting a state ID in order to vote is a pretty low requirement, which is why 75% of black people meet it. I still haven't been given a good reason for why the integrity of the vote should be forfeited because of the other 25%.

Let me turn that question around; you have yet to show a reason to exclude a significant portion of voters (which would reduce the integrity of the vote by making it less democratic) due to voter fraud which to date has not been proven to exist with or without voter ID laws in place and enforced. In Iowa alone 260.000 voters would potentially be banned, in Texas over 1 million voters compared to the 4 cases found total in the 2016 election. Which should take higher priority? To get a higher turn out to get a more representative result by the millions or 4 potential fraudulent votes which would have zero impact on the final result in any given election nation wide?

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

You said “malicious intent,” so the malicious intent in Texas was to stop Latinos or blacks or dems from voting. Even though many states have passed laws that had no issue you have stated your support for the malious laws enacted with racist intent.

Because I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it could even work. And the end result is what I think should be a requirement.. Picture ID.

Is there a general consensus in here that the world is just black and white with no grey bits in between? Am I suddenly a racist because I support voter ID laws, regardless of their motivation?

If so, then I'm in the wrong place.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Let me turn that question around; you have yet to show a reason to exclude a significant portion of voters (which would reduce the integrity of the vote by making it less democratic) due to voter fraud which to date has not been proven to exist with or without voter ID laws in place and enforced. In Iowa alone 260.000 voters would potentially be banned, in Texas over 1 million voters compared to the 4 cases found total in the 2016 election. Which should take higher priority? To get a higher turn out to get a more representative result by the millions or 4 potential fraudulent votes which would have zero impact on the final result in any given election nation wide?

I think there is more voter fraud than reported, which is an obvious statement I know. If an official on the New York Board of Elections is talking about people getting bussed around from station to station, I take it that this is probably a country-wide issue.

And I'm not arguing that those people be banned. I'm arguing that they should have to get the ID and they deserve their right to vote.


For all the talk of Russians "hacking the election", the Democrats really don't want to protect it at all.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Because I think it's absolutely ridiculous that it could even work. And the end result is what I think should be a requirement.. Picture ID.

Is there a general consensus in here that the world is just black and white with no grey bits in between? Am I suddenly a racist because I support voter ID laws, regardless of their motivation?

If so, then I'm in the wrong place.

No a person is racist if they support laws that have in Texas case been proven by a court to be racist. Remember your first claim you have seen no evidence yet you hold to your view when shown legal evidence. Then you double down despite some states having legal voter ID law you say you support such laws as Texas which you accept have bad intention behind the law. All to fix a problem where most experts agree does not exist?

Nody

Deleted User wrote: »

Is there a general consensus in here that the world is just black and white with no grey bits in between? Am I suddenly a racist because I support voter ID laws, regardless of their motivation?

I think you'll find few, if any, who'd not support FAIR voter ID laws with a free card to everyone to use. What you will not find are people who'll support it no matter the reason and esp. when it's implemented intentionally to suppress specific voters from exercising their democratic right to vote and done so in the name of a non existent voter fraud as excuse. If the voter ID laws states suddenly showed a 10%+ increase in documented or potential voter fraud you'd have the start of an argument to why voter ID laws (even if implemented flawed) is required; however no states who moved over to require user ID for voting showed any change in the number of fraudulent cases. That means the voter ID laws have zero impact on addressing the fraud you believe exist out there and hence their justification of reducing voter fraud is null and void and the only effect they then have is to suppress valid legal votes from the community.

Anyways, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.. You have countless pages of mass-agreement with each other, and very few people even playing Devil's advocate. It's a dull thing with no debate.

I can see why as I'm getting heavily disrespected in here and implications of racism are being thrown around willy nilly because I'm arguing a point you don't agree with.


Edit: I'm being told that because a court decided something was racist, I'm racist. Good luck everyone.

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyways, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.. You have countless pages of mass-agreement with each other, and very few people even playing Devil's advocate. It's a dull thing with no debate.

I can see why as I'm getting heavily disrespected in here and implications of racism are being thrown around willy nilly because I'm arguing a point you don't agree with.

You're not being 'disrespected', you're being disagreed with.

For what it's worth, I don't actually think you are actively racist, I just think you are quite ignorant of the complexities of of how voter suppression tactics are used in the US, and are simply unwilling to accept that your argument (which is based in ignorance) is just not a very good argument.

Really Interested

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Anyways, I think I'm pretty much done with this thread.. You have countless pages of mass-agreement with each other, and very few people even playing Devil's advocate. It's a dull thing with no debate.

I can see why as I'm getting heavily disrespected in here and implications of racism are being thrown around willy nilly because I'm arguing a point you don't agree with.


Edit: I'm being told that because a court decided something was racist, I'm racist. Good luck everyone.

Bye bye.

No a person is racists if they agree with a racist law despite other states passing non racist versions.

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever was going through the mind of the person who enacted the law is irrelevant, if the end result is the same. How is it dickish? It's pragmatic if anything.

If you can't tell the difference between "let's protect the integrity of the ballot" and "let's make it as difficult as possible for people who are likely to vote for our opponents to vote at all", I'm not sure what to say to you.

I'm also at a loss as to how you can blithely assume that a voter ID law that is explicitly designed to be a selective voter suppression measure can only possibly have a positive outcome.

I think what you're guilty of is something I've bemoaned in online discussions before: one-dimensional thinking. It's a bloody-minded exercise in distilling something down to a single simplistic metric and refusing to consider the issue from any other angle.

Your simplistic metric is "integrity of the ballot" - the idea that the only factor worthy of consideration is voter fraud, and literally nothing else matters. If the actual intent is racist; if the entire point of the exercise is to prevent black people from voting; that's OK, because it might cut down on voter fraud, and if those black people really want to vote, they'll overcome the obstacles put in their path.

Looked at it in that light, it's almost a reasonable perspective - but if you're serious about the integrity of the ballot, then disenfranchisement is at least as important a consideration as personation. And, considering disenfranchisement is many orders of magnitude more likely to be a problem than personation, it becomes significantly more important.

Pelvis

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between "let's protect the integrity of the ballot" and "let's make it as difficult as possible for people who are likely to vote for our opponents to vote at all", I'm not sure what to say to you.

I'm also at a loss as to how you can blithely assume that a voter ID law that is explicitly designed to be a selective voter suppression measure can only possibly have a positive outcome.

I think what you're guilty of is something I've bemoaned in online discussions before: one-dimensional thinking. It's a bloody-minded exercise in distilling something down to a single simplistic metric and refusing to consider the issue from any other angle.

Your simplistic metric is "integrity of the ballot" - the idea that the only factor worthy of consideration is voter fraud, and literally nothing else matters. If the actual intent is racist; if the entire point of the exercise is to prevent black people from voting; that's OK, because it might cut down on voter fraud, and if those black people really want to vote, they'll overcome the obstacles put in their path.

Looked at it in that light, it's almost a reasonable perspective - but if you're serious about the integrity of the ballot, then disenfranchisement is at least as important a consideration as personation. And, considering disenfranchisement is many orders of magnitude more likely to be a problem than personation, it becomes significantly more important.

Very well put.

Manic Moran

For the sake of completeness, some of those examples of 'why don't they accept these IDs' are relative. If I tried to use the ID card the State of Nevada gave me as an employee, I'd be laughed at. The card is the state seal (in surprisingly low resolution), my photo, and my name. Nothing else. Unless the voting booth is equipped with RFID to read the chip inside the card... The idea of using a university ID similarly seems daft, given the quality standards of such things.

Similarly, the drivers' licenses for nine states are not accepted by the Federal Government for ID purposes for travel because they aren't considered secure/reliable enough. You want to fly and you live in one of those States, you need a federal ID. That's not disenfranchisement for travel, that's holding a standard to the ID.

Leroy42

Wouldn't the answer be to standarise it across the states, rather than letting local governors etc decide it based on what they felt was best for them or their party.

Wouldn't have to limit it to a single type, but a standard list of what is acceptable. Same with Gerrymandering, far too much leeway, IMO, is given to political parties in deciding what is essentially their customers.

Take these type of decision out of the political sphere (I know that it is impossible to remove it entirely) by having things like to change one district then all districts must be reviewed by an separate body

Quin_Dub

Thread to host discussion on US Voting ID laws and the implications therein.

Really Interested

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wouldn't the answer be to standarise it across the states, rather than letting local governors etc decide it based on what they felt was best for them or their party.

Wouldn't have to limit it to a single type, but a standard list of what is acceptable. Same with Gerrymandering, far too much leeway, IMO, is given to political parties in deciding what is essentially their customers.

Take these type of decision out of the political sphere (I know that it is impossible to remove it entirely) by having things like to change one district then all districts must be reviewed by an separate body

I believe many would find it difficult not to agree to such a system.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wouldn't the answer be to standarise it across the states, rather than letting local governors etc decide it based on what they felt was best for them or their party.

Wouldn't have to limit it to a single type, but a standard list of what is acceptable. Same with Gerrymandering, far too much leeway, IMO, is given to political parties in deciding what is essentially their customers.

Take these type of decision out of the political sphere (I know that it is impossible to remove it entirely) by having things like to change one district then all districts must be reviewed by an separate body

The only problem is that like asking Trump to give up his Big Mac and Nuclear weapons; it makes sense and is logical but no one in power wants to give up said power. And the Democrats were just as happy gerrymandering as well when given their chance mind you so I don't put this one on Republican only. Neither party wants to give up the chance to screw over the other side given the opportunity so neither would give up the power in the first place.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

The only problem is that like asking Trump to give up his Big Mac and Nuclear weapons; it makes sense and is logical but no one in power wants to give up said power. And the Democrats were just as happy gerrymandering as well when given their chance mind you so I don't put this one on Republican only. Neither party wants to give up the chance to screw over the other side given the opportunity so neither would give up the power in the first place.

I totally agree. I said in earlier postings that whilst it appears that the GOP are the biggest in this, it is clear that both parties have very little real concern over the sheer numbers of people that don't vote.

If the DNC really cared, they would simply put all their efforts into getting that 50% voter turnout to 60% or above. Based on the demographics of the current non voters that should lead to a landslide for the DNC.

The issue, of course, is that once out the genie is very hard to put back in the bottle. These voters will soon realise that they are the balance of power and look to make hay from that (just as the current christian fundamentalists and NRA etc do). That could upend the very cozy little set up that the DNC/GOP have.

Manic Moran

Leroy42 wrote: »

Wouldn't the answer be to standarise it across the states, rather than letting local governors etc decide it based on what they felt was best for them or their party.

Wouldn't have to limit it to a single type, but a standard list of what is acceptable. Same with Gerrymandering, far too much leeway, IMO, is given to political parties in deciding what is essentially their customers.

Take these type of decision out of the political sphere (I know that it is impossible to remove it entirely) by having things like to change one district then all districts must be reviewed by an separate body

Whilst generally being fine with a non-government body doing the districting (we implemented it by voter-submitted referendum here in California a couple of year ago, we were sick of the gerrymandering the government was doing: It's not just a Republican thing), I would think that standardising the voting rules across the 50 States would go over about as well as standardising them across the 28 countries of the EU.

eire4

Leroy42 wrote: »

I totally agree. I said in earlier postings that whilst it appears that the GOP are the biggest in this, it is clear that both parties have very little real concern over the sheer numbers of people that don't vote.

If the DNC really cared, they would simply put all their efforts into getting that 50% voter turnout to 60% or above. Based on the demographics of the current non voters that should lead to a landslide for the DNC.

The issue, of course, is that once out the genie is very hard to put back in the bottle. These voters will soon realise that they are the balance of power and look to make hay from that (just as the current christian fundamentalists and NRA etc do). That could upend the very cozy little set up that the DNC/GOP have.

Nail on the head there. There is no question the Republicans are the biggest crooks currently when it comes to voter suppression. But your absolutely right that the corporate controlled Democratic party clearly has no interest in the vast majority of Americans either. As you say if the Democrats were really interested there is roughly 50% of the country out there to attract from a voting standpoint. As you point out if Democrats could even move the voter numbers to about the 60% mark they would win in a landslide. But they have absolutely no interest in that because as you rightly say they would then actually have to respond to those new voters who would have a very powerful voice and say in policy.

To my mind the difference between the 2 (economically) in general is that Republicans serve and work for the top 1% and the Democrats serve and work for maybe the top 20% from a wealth stand point. Either way the vast majority of Americans are not part of the equation as things stand.

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

Whilst generally being fine with a non-government body doing the districting (we implemented it by voter-submitted referendum here in California a couple of year ago, we were sick of the gerrymandering the government was doing: It's not just a Republican thing), I would think that standardising the voting rules across the 50 States would go over about as well as standardising them across the 28 countries of the EU.

+1

Standardised voting rules across the States has very little to do with political parties and a lot more to do with the relationship between the various States and the federal government.

Overheal

OMG I found some voter fraud and would you look at who it is...

https://lawandcrime.com/crazy/former-gop-chairman-sentenced-for-voter-fraud/

The former chairman of the Colorado GOP was sentenced Friday for falsifying his ex-wife’s absentee ballot. Steve Curtis, 57, must serve four years of probation and perform 300 hours of community service for voter fraud and forgery, according to a statement from the Weld County District Attorney.

Kelly Curtis left their home in December 2015 and moved to South Carolina. Months passed, and the general election approached. Prosecutors said the defendant took his ex’s absentee ballot in October 2016 and signed it in her name. Kelly Curtis said she discovered the crime when she contacted the county clerk to ask how she could vote, and they told her that she already did it.

Steve Curtis claimed he had a diabetic blackout the night it happened, and couldn’t remember doing it. His children testified to support that claim.

Curtis tried to downplay his responsibility by claiming the one vote wouldn’t change the outcome of the election, said Weld Deputy District Attorney Tate Costin.

“He committed a selfish and arrogant crime,” Costin said. “This was not a product of a diabetic blackout. He did this out of spite and thought he’d get away with this. He not only took away his ex-wife’s right to vote in the 2016 election, but this affected the nation. His one fraudulent vote created an insecurity in our system and created discomfort throughout the country. He is educated, successful and intelligent, yet he has never once taken responsibility for what he did and has blamed everything and everyone, including the system. Bottom line, he has absolutely no respect for the law.”

Prosecutors said they traced the ballot to the defendant using handwriting analysis and DNA evidence from the envelope.

Curtis served as chairman of the Colorado GOP from 1997 to 1999. He went onto become a radio show host with KLZ-560 AM Conservative Talk Radio.

“Virtually every case of voter fraud I can remember in my lifetime was committed by Democrats,” he said in an October 6, 2016 broadcast. “Am I on to something here or do I just not have the facts?”

eire4

If Republicans really believed that having an acceptable voter ID was vital to election integrity there is one very easy solution. Have the federal government make a federal ID that would guarantee peoples right to cast their vote. The federal government could cover the cost of the ID and any documents needed for it. They could be dispensed at post offices which are available in all local communities. Currently acceptable forms of ID would still of course apply but an easily available and cost free federal ID uniform over all states would solve this issue. But of course Republicans have no interest in a solution because this is all about voter suppression not election integrity.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

If Republicans really believed that having an acceptable voter ID was vital to election integrity there is one very easy solution. Have the federal government make a federal ID that would guarantee peoples right to cast their vote. The federal government could cover the cost of the ID and any documents needed for it. They could be dispensed at post offices which are available in all local communities. Currently acceptable forms of ID would still of course apply but an easily available and cost free federal ID uniform over all states would solve this issue. But of course Republicans have no interest in a solution because this is all about voter suppression not election integrity.

I don't think the Feds can mandate that the States use or accept any particular form of ID for State business. The States do accept federal ID (passports, military etc), but I don't think it's mandatory as much as 'accepted'. All elections and referenda are State elections, Tenth Amendment and all that. Still seems like something which should be solved at the State level.

FreudianSlippers

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think the Feds can mandate that the States use or accept any particular form of ID for State business. The States do accept federal ID (passports, military etc), but I don't think it's mandatory as much as 'accepted'. All elections and referenda are State elections, Tenth Amendment and all that. Still seems like something which should be solved at the State level.

The Feds can (and have) mandated certain requirements for State ID (i.e. tamper-proofing measures, standard size, etc.) but I don't think a federal ID will ever exist in the US. They'd have to pass legislation to mandate it, but also to create a new federal agency to oversee it. It's definitely a State issue to resolve with guidance from the federal government.

Really Interested

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Feds can (and have) mandated certain requirements for State ID (i.e. tamper-proofing measures, standard size, etc.) but I don't think a federal ID will ever exist in the US. They'd have to pass legislation to mandate it, but also to create a new federal agency to oversee it. It's definitely a State issue to resolve with guidance from the federal government.

Or a system where the State decides on ID law where at Fed level a decision is made as to what is acceptable ID as in this college ID is good that college ID is not.

FreudianSlippers

Really Interested wrote: »

Or a system where the State decides on ID law where at Fed level a decision is made as to what is acceptable ID as in this college ID is good that college ID is not.

IIRC this is already exactly what happens (and college ID is never valid I believe) - I think it's called or was at one point called the RealID Act.

Really Interested

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

IIRC this is already exactly what happens (and college ID is never valid I believe) - I think it's called or was at one point called the RealID Act.

That Act does not impose what ID is acceptable by states but says what ID is acceptable for use at a federal level, it is security measure and sets out what ID can be used to board a plane or enter a Fed building etc.

Some states driving licences are not acceptable

https://www.dhs.gov/real-id


The Act does set out standards a State must adopt in relation to supporting documents that must be used to get state issued ID. Under the Act I do not see a distinction between a state college ID card and state issued driving licence as long as they bot satisfy the tests set out in the Act.

What I was saying is at federal level for voting a similar Act but where some body after assessing each ID card say if it’s good enough. Not some random political decision that is done with bad intent.

eire4

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Feds can (and have) mandated certain requirements for State ID (i.e. tamper-proofing measures, standard size, etc.) but I don't think a federal ID will ever exist in the US. They'd have to pass legislation to mandate it, but also to create a new federal agency to oversee it. It's definitely a State issue to resolve with guidance from the federal government.

Fair enough. My point remains though if this actually was really about voting integrity then all they have to do is get all states with any help needed be it logistical and or financial from the federal government to come up with an acceptable ID that can be used for voting in that state and make it available for free at all post offices for anybody who needs an ID that can guarantee they can vote. But that is not and has never been in the works because voter ID laws are about voter suppression not voting integrity.

Jcarroll07

If requiring ID = voter suppression then we irish are heavy engaged in it. Polling clerk can ask any one for proof of ID they dont have to ask anyone, but they could if they wanted ask everyone and turn them away if they refuse to provide it. The idea that ID = voter suppression is rubbish IMO

Overheal

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

If requiring ID = voter suppression then we irish are heavy engaged in it. Polling clerk can ask any one for proof of ID they dont have to ask anyone, but they could if they wanted ask everyone and turn them away if they refuse to provide it. The idea that ID = voter suppression is rubbish IMO

Well yeah if you look at it so plainly. But the appeals courts have gone through a lot of this and shot down plenty of voter ID laws for ultimately being less about vote integrity and more about voter suppression. Texas and North Carolina have had their voter id laws that they’ve tried to pass thrown out most recently, and this has been upheld in both cases by the Supreme Court.

Here is the unanimous decision rejecting NCs voter law by the 4th circuit, in which they detail their objections to the law. Namely that provisions for ID and the scaling back of early voting was designed to target African American voters “with surgical precision”

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/161468.P.pdf

You can jump to page 9 past the header fluff it’s a pretty straight read, for example:

“After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

Basically state republicans made it clear by researching voting habits based upon race as their primary motivating factor they established a legislative intent to restrict the voting of African Americans. But it’s a doozy of a decision that goes for a few chapters.

Really Interested

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

If requiring ID = voter suppression then we irish are heavy engaged in it. Polling clerk can ask any one for proof of ID they dont have to ask anyone, but they could if they wanted ask everyone and turn them away if they refuse to provide it. The idea that ID = voter suppression is rubbish IMO

Can you set out why you disagree with a number of Court decisions and how each decision is wrong and you are right?

Jcarroll07

Really Interested wrote: »

Can you set out why you disagree with a number of Court decisions and how each decision is wrong and you are right?

Im not disagreeing the the motives from the implementation might be wrong. I am saying that the idea the ID laws automatically = voter suppression is rubbish. Most western countries have them, the US is actually the odd one out in that regard.

Really Interested

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Im not disagreeing the the motives from the implementation might be wrong. I am saying that the idea the ID laws automatically = voter suppression is rubbish. Most western countries have them, the US is actually the odd one out in that regard.

Can you point to any post on this thread that in theory voter ID is a bad thing? Can you point to anyone “normal” who says all requirements for voter is is the same as suppression.

In fact the US not odd man out with the majority of states having voter ID laws.

https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state

As you can see only 1/3 states have no I’d law the tests it ranges from non photo ID to strict ID laws.

eire4

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

If requiring ID = voter suppression then we irish are heavy engaged in it. Polling clerk can ask any one for proof of ID they dont have to ask anyone, but they could if they wanted ask everyone and turn them away if they refuse to provide it. The idea that ID = voter suppression is rubbish IMO

In Ireland sure that can be the case. But we are talking about the US here.

I will repeat what I said above if this was truly about voting integrity then the Republicans would be making sure the federal government which they completely control at all levels would help out including financially every state with putting together an ID that could be used for voting in each state that is 100% paid for and will guarantee a person can vote. This would be available at all post offices. But the fact is nothing like that has ever even been discussed by Republicans because the various voter ID laws in the US are about voter suppression and not voting integrity.

Jcarroll07

eire4 wrote: »

In Ireland sure that can be the case. But we are talking about the US here.

I will repeat what I said above if this was truly about voting integrity then the Republicans would be making sure the federal government which they completely control at all levels would help out including financially every state with putting together an ID that could be used for voting in each state that is 100% paid for and will guarantee a person can vote. This would be available at all post offices. But the fact is nothing like that has ever even been discussed by Republicans because the various voter ID laws in the US are about voter suppression and not voting integrity.

But what role does the federal government have in this? Its a state issue and the republican far more then the democrats believe in letting states deal with issues that are supposed to be left to them. Technically speaking constitutionally unless a power is specifically mentioned as exercisable by the federal government then it is a state issue and the states are supposed to be the ones that deal with it, not the federal government. The whole point of the American system is not to have a massive centralised governmental system, but to break it up and decentralise where and when possible.

Nody

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

But what role does the federal government have in this? Its a state issue and the republican far more then the democrats believe in letting states deal with issues that are supposed to be left to them. Technically speaking constitutionally unless a power is specifically mentioned as exercisable by the federal government then it is a state issue and the states are supposed to be the ones that deal with it, not the federal government. The whole point of the American system is not to have a massive centralised governmental system, but to break it up and decentralise where and when possible.

It would be federal if the stated aim (avoid voter fraud) was true as this would apply for all states and all elections. This would also be the point of the state paying for the voter ID to ensure everyone had it through a federal entity (post office or similar). It would then be up to the states if they wished to add any other IDs as valid on top of that.

Jcarroll07

Nody wrote: »

It would be federal if the stated aim (avoid voter fraud) was true as this would apply for all states and all elections. This would also be the point of the state paying for the voter ID to ensure everyone had it through a federal entity (post office or similar). It would then be up to the states if they wished to add any other IDs as valid on top of that.

Ya but whats wrong with doing it through the states? They are supposed to deal with these kind of issues. Unless it is a thing that you dont trust the states to be able to deal with it?
But I dont see how that is the case. If it can be dealt with by the states, which it can, then it should be left for them to deal with. The who point of the federal systems is to allow them take different approaches to the same issues if thats what the people living in those areas want.