US Voting Rules & ID Requirements

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.

Leroy42

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

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.

Its not a matter of trusting the states, certain states (normally but not limited to GOP controlled states) have shown themselves to be very open to politicising the whole system. Why would anybody continue to trust a system rhat has shown itself unreliable?

Jcarroll07

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its not a matter of trusting the states, certain states (normally but not limited to GOP controlled states) have shown themselves to be very open to politicising the whole system. Why would anybody continue to trust a system rhat has shown itself unreliable?

Ah ok so you don't like the idea that the Republican control the majority of state legislators and govern-ships ect and so would like the federal government to over rule them. Well unfortunately depending which side you are coming from the system was specifically designed to prevent that. Plus the idea that its most republicans that politicise such situations is just a little disingenuous.

Leroy42

I never said any of that.

The question was asked why not trust the states to do it and I pointed out why the states cannot be trusted.

Overheal

Jcarroll07 wrote: »

Ah ok so you don't like the idea that the Republican control the majority of state legislators and govern-ships ect and so would like the federal government to over rule them. Well unfortunately depending which side you are coming from the system was specifically designed to prevent that. Plus the idea that its most republicans that politicise such situations is just a little disingenuous.

I would direct you to the court decision I posted earlier in the thread which describes in some length and detail how you have no idea what you’re talking about.

eire4

I have to laugh at the excuses been thrown out to try and avoid the fact that this is a non issue which could easily be solved.
In my post I never said the federal government impose anything. I said the states could put together their own ID's which would be guaranteed to allow a person who needs one to vote. The federal governments role would be to offer financial help so these ID's and any documents needed to obtain them would be free and that these ID's could be obtained at post offices as there are post offices in pretty much every community. So in other words the states would make their own ID's and the federal governments role would simply be to help make them free and easily distributed.

But of course this has never been about voter integrity it has always been about voter suppression and the fact that a proposal such as put forward above which would solve the issue has never been brought forward shows that.

Overheal

Pennsylvania gerrymandering had the nails put in its coffin, SCOTUS rejects appeal to re-hear the lower court's case. The state must now redraw its districts

Republicans won 13 of Pennsylvania’s 18 congressional seats in November 2016, even though voters statewide were roughly evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans in Pennsylvania have also tried to get the state supreme court to toss its 5-2 decision by alleging that one of the Democratic justices should have recused himself over comments he made opposing gerrymandering in 2015. This effort is also unlikely to succeed. As Mother Jones reported, one of the Republican justices who dissented in the gerrymandering case received a $25,000 campaign donation from Senate President Pro Tempore Joseph Scarnati, one of the Republican defendants in the case. The justice, Sallie Mundy, did not disclose the donation during the case, although it was reported in campaign finance filings.

On the top map you can see the county map overlayed by the district map, which cuts and portions counties with abandon in what is a pretty QED attempt at gerrymandering. 'Safe' counties are kept whole while counties like Erie, Lawrence, Clarion, Greene, Montgomery, Cambria, Berks. Somerset, Lancaster, Monroe and plenty others are butchered up to divide and conquer.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/02/supreme-court-clears-way-for-pennsylvania-to-draw-new-congressional-map/




The 7th District was particularly bad, with parts of the district getting running through a parking lot to maintain continuity (On the rop-right portion connecting the middle portion)

Manic Moran

On related notes, an actual Illinois Nazi is looking at being the GOP candidate in the Illinois 3rd District, in Chicago. He's been at it since 1976, and may well be part of the inspiration for the Blues Brothers crowd. (The reason he got the nomination was that in that incredibly blue central Chicago district, no GOP was going to waste time and effort trying).

However, when researching, I noticed Illinois' 4th Congressional district, right next door.


Note that for a good stretch, it's Interstate 294. Population of that bit, 0. It also seems to be held together by a railway line up North.

Overheal

which website did you use for the map, i tried using google maps but it wasn't helping

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

However, when researching, I noticed Illinois' 4th Congressional district, right next door.

Note that for a good stretch, it's Interstate 294. Population of that bit, 0. It also seems to be held together by a railway line up North.

How can anyone look at that and think it represents a fair division of any kind?

Overheal

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

How can anyone look at that and think it represents a fair division of any kind?

Yet apparently IL is a DNC gerrymandering operation and the state constitution hasn't been rigid enough to stop this farce.

Cookie_Monster

Overheal wrote: »

which website did you use for the map, i tried using google maps but it wasn't helping

not the best, but you can get an idea of most of them from wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts

oscarBravo

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/pa-lawmaker-hopes-to-impeach-justices-who-nixed-gerrymander.html

The US really is busy tearing itself apart in a fever of insane partisanship.

Overheal

Wow.

eire4

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/pa-lawmaker-hopes-to-impeach-justices-who-nixed-gerrymander.html

The US really is busy tearing itself apart in a fever of insane partisanship.

What the article does not mention is that in the last election despite the vote basically being split down the middle the Republicans thanks to the gerrymandering won 13 of the 18 congressional districts.

But in terms of what the article is pointing to is indeed a scary trend towards authoritarianism in the US. The Republicans used to claim they were the party of law and order well clearly lead by a man who has no respect for a neutral and non partisan judiciary the opposite is the case today.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/pa-lawmaker-hopes-to-impeach-justices-who-nixed-gerrymander.html

The US really is busy tearing itself apart in a fever of insane partisanship.

Honestly, I frequently think that reunification at the end of the Civil War might have been one of the worst things that could have happened to the US on a whole.