Voter ID requirement may affect black voter turnout, Dems Fear

[Jim in Anchorage]

I don't use my ID very often in day to day life besides driving.

 

 

 

As I pointed out before, I'm not sure. I know I had to drop $80 for mine.

Not sure, but you are positive this is a move to strip the vote from minority's

[fjl2nd]

I'll repeat the question for fjl2nd. Why can't those without IDs obtain one sometime over the next 4 months?

 

Some or most probably can. But, are they going to have to pay for it?

 

Nobody ever answered the question of why this is suddenly a top issue for Republicans? Voter fraud virtually doesn't exist and making people get a state ID isn't going to fix anything.

 

If these laws are put in place, are they people going to have to re-register to vote? Because if not, I think any 18-20 year old kids figured out fake IDs a long time ago.

[The Big Cat]

Some or most probably can. But, are they going to have to pay for it?

 

Nobody ever answered the question of why this is suddenly a top issue for Republicans? Voter fraud virtually doesn't exist and making people get a state ID isn't going to fix anything.

 

If these laws are put in place, are they people going to have to re-register to vote? Because if not, I think any 18-20 year old kids figured out fake IDs a long time ago.

 

You're asking them to answer why we need these laws, and they keep telling you why we should have these laws. Doesn't matter how many laps you do, you're both right, but they won't tell you that.

[Jauronimo]

Some or most probably can. But, are they going to have to pay for it?

 

Nobody ever answered the question of why this is suddenly a top issue for Republicans? Voter fraud virtually doesn't exist and making people get a state ID isn't going to fix anything.

 

If these laws are put in place, are they people going to have to re-register to vote? Because if not, I think any 18-20 year old kids figured out fake IDs a long time ago.

So if most can, as in most are capable of obtaining a photo ID, then how will the regulation limit minority votes?

 

You're asking them to answer why we need these laws, and they keep telling you why we should have these laws. Doesn't matter how many laps you do, you're both right, but they won't tell you that.

His assertion was that the move was solely intended to limit minority votes. The necessity of the proposed regulation was secondary.

[IDBillzFan]

So if most can, as in most are capable of obtaining a photo ID, then how will the regulation limit minority votes?

 

 

His assertion was that the move was solely intended to limit minority votes. The necessity of the proposed regulation was secondary.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

 

Well, I mean, it was the point until that point became useless so now we have a new point which, naturally, will be useless, too, but, but, but...SHUT UP!

[fjl2nd]

So if most can, as in most are capable of obtaining a photo ID, then how will the regulation limit minority votes?

 

 

His assertion was that the move was solely intended to limit minority votes. The necessity of the proposed regulation was secondary.

 

I don't if you're just playing games, or you really want me to keep repeating myself. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

My initial comments were in response to the OP. This isn't just about minorities, but they are part of the group that is mostly affected. And I also said the voter fraud argument is made up deeming regulation unnecessary.

Edited July 12, 2012 by fjl2nd

[DC Tom]

As I pointed out before, I'm not sure. I know I had to drop $80 for mine.

 

Every place I know of that's passed a voter ID law has included in the law a provision that photo IDs would be made available, free (not necessarily a drivers' license, but at least some type of free "voters ID" would be provided.)

 

Reason being: if not, one could very easily argue that it's a poll tax.

 

So in the context of this conversation, you can safely assume that IDs are free.

[The Big Cat]

So if most can, as in most are capable of obtaining a photo ID, then how will the regulation limit minority votes?

 

 

His assertion was that the move was solely intended to limit minority votes. The necessity of the proposed regulation was secondary.

 

Well, most can't. At least according to the articles/studies I just skimmed searching for the oppressive language/nature of these laws.

 

But of everything I read, this last paragraph from The Atlantic really struck a chord:

 

In 10 years, just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state convictions -- in a colossal state with a population of more than 25 million people. You can do the math. You can be stupid and vote in America. You can be drunk and vote in America. You can be mentally insane and vote in America. You could vote in America for Snooki or Rod Blagojevich. Or, like tens of millions of your fellow citizens, you can choose not to vote at all. But if you don't have the means to get a driver's license, or if you cannot afford the time and money it takes to get certain other forms of government ID, you are out of luck? What a great country this is.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

 

And as far as the ID laws being a blatant GOP tactic--don't take my word for it, don't take fjl's word for it, take it straight from the GOP's mouth: (bracketed part is mine)

 

And here's what [Pennsylvania Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai] told the Republican State Committee last month to wild applause: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

 

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633447_1_state-carol-aichele-voter-id-absentee-ballots

[fjl2nd]

Every place I know of that's passed a voter ID law has included in the law a provision that photo IDs would be made available, free (not necessarily a drivers' license, but at least some type of free "voters ID" would be provided.)

 

Reason being: if not, one could very easily argue that it's a poll tax.

 

So in the context of this conversation, you can safely assume that IDs are free.

 

Fair then. If there is legitimate resources to get citizens an ID to vote then that's all fine. I don't think I would be in favor it since it's still unnecessary, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

[Doc]

Fair then. If there is legitimate resources to get citizens an ID to vote then that's all fine. I don't think I would be in favor it since it's still unnecessary, but I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

You don't think it's necessary because you mistakenly believe there is no voter fraud. When the exact opposite has been proven.

[The Big Cat]

You don't think it's necessary because you mistakenly believe there is no voter fraud. When the exact opposite has been proven.

 

Saying there's no photo voter fraud is like saying there's no spontaneous combustion.

 

Issuing laws to protect against voter fraud is similar to making everyone walk around with a fire extinguisher strapped to their backs in case they happen to burst into flames.

 

I'm not saying the laws aren't sensible--they are--but the circumstances under wich we're being sold the necessity for the laws is completely bogus.

Edited July 12, 2012 by The Big Cat

[Rob's House]

For all of the people who do not have these photo ID's, are they going to be provided to them for free so they can vote??

 

Or are we going to enforce a poll tax?

This must be a joke or a MDP imitation. You can't possibly be dumb enough to seriously equate ID requirements to a poll tax. You just can't.

 

You don't think it's necessary because you mistakenly believe there is no voter fraud. When the exact opposite has been proven.

Uh, maybe you didn't get the memo, but some guy at NYU wrote a paper saying there's no voter fraud. So that settles it.

[DC Tom]

This must be a joke or a MDP imitation. You can't possibly be dumb enough to seriously equate ID requirements to a poll tax. You just can't.

 

If you have to pay to get the ID to vote, then the courts will probably rule that it is, in fact, a poll tax.

 

And personally, I'd agree with them. The RIGHT to vote shouldn't be infringed, but the RESPONSIBILITY to do it properly should be mandated - which means the states should require polling centers to identify voters, and states should be required to define clearly and up-front what does and does not constitute a valid vote (so that we don't run into the 2000 Florida "It's dimpled, so it represents the intent of the voter, even if it's not a valid vote" crap again.)

[Jauronimo]

I don't if you're just playing games, or you really want me to keep repeating myself. This shouldn't be that hard to understand.

 

My initial comments were in response to the OP. This isn't just about minorities, but they are part of the group that is mostly affected.

The above is tremendously hard to understand. Not only does it make little sense, but you didn't answer the question.

 

If most of those without photo IDs are capable of obtaining an ID, as we have agreed, then how will the proposed reform limit minority voting?

 

Since you refuse to answer, I'll break it down for you.

 

The only way the reform can limit minority voting is if minorities simply choose not to obtain a photo ID. Such an act can be easily described as laziness. Or perhaps apathy, in which case they likely wouldn't have voted anyway. The only other alternative is if the original assumption was incorrect and these people are indeed incapable of obtaining a photo, which can only be due to sheer incompetence.

 

Therefore, when you assert that the regulation will limit minority voting you have insinuated that they are either too dumb, lazy or apathetic to obtain a photo ID. You didn't have to utter those very words, they are implied.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Jauronimo

[B-Man]

The above is tremendously hard to understand. Not only does it make little sense, but you didn't answer the question.

 

If most of those without photo IDs are capable of obtaining an ID, as we have agreed, then how will the proposed reform limit minority voting?

 

Since you refuse to answer, I'll break it down for you.

 

The only way the reform can limit minority voting is if minorities simply choose not to obtain a photo ID.

 

Therefore, when you assert that the regulation will limit minority voting you have insinuated that they are either too dumb, lazy or apathetic to obtain a photo ID. You didn't have to utter those very words, they are implied.

 

You forgot the "elephant in the room" (yes.....pun intended)

 

Having to produce a photo ID will cut down greatly on fraud,

by decreasing multiple voters (cases documented throughout the US)

by decreasing voters voting for someone else (or deceased)

by decreasing Illegal voters.

 

.

Edited July 12, 2012 by B-Man

[Jauronimo]

Well, most can't. At least according to the articles/studies I just skimmed searching for the oppressive language/nature of these laws.

 

But of everything I read, this last paragraph from The Atlantic really struck a chord:

 

In 10 years, just 100 federal prosecutions and 50 state convictions -- in a colossal state with a population of more than 25 million people. You can do the math. You can be stupid and vote in America. You can be drunk and vote in America. You can be mentally insane and vote in America. You could vote in America for Snooki or Rod Blagojevich. Or, like tens of millions of your fellow citizens, you can choose not to vote at all. But if you don't have the means to get a driver's license, or if you cannot afford the time and money it takes to get certain other forms of government ID, you are out of luck? What a great country this is.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

 

And as far as the ID laws being a blatant GOP tactic--don't take my word for it, don't take fjl's word for it, take it straight from the GOP's mouth: (bracketed part is mine)

 

And here's what [Pennsylvania Republican House Majority Leader Mike Turzai] told the Republican State Committee last month to wild applause: "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

 

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633447_1_state-carol-aichele-voter-id-absentee-ballots

And the Majority Leader's insinuations regarding the Voter ID law are no less offensive than fjl's. Looks like you, Turzai and fjl all have very little faith in this nation's minorities.

 

I, however, believe that we can expect minorities to meet the most minimum of qualifications, and that anything less is doing them all a disservice.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Jauronimo

[The Big Cat]

And the Majority Leader's insinuations regarding the Voter ID law are no less offensive than fjl's. Looks like you, Turzai and fjl all have very little faith in this nation's minorities.

 

I, however, believe that we can expect minorities to meet the most minimum of qualifications, and that anything less is doing them all a disservice.

 

I never made Turzai's words my own--in fact, I out rightly separated myself from his. Please don't insult me this way.

 

And the Majority Leader's insinuations regarding the Voter ID law are no less offensive than fjl's. Looks like you, Turzai and fjl all have very little faith in this nation's minorities.

 

I, however, believe that we can expect minorities to meet the most minimum of qualifications, and that anything less is doing them all a disservice.

 

I share your belief. And in fact, if they don't have the wherewithal or the motivation to meet those qualifications, then consider the voting pool purged. Operating under the assumption that voter turnout is inherently positive is reckless.

[Jauronimo]

I never made Turzai's words my own--in fact, I out rightly separated myself from his. Please don't insult me this way.

No, but you did say that minorities simply can't obtain a photo ID. How else can that be interpreted given the context?

[Rob's House]

If you have to pay to get the ID to vote, then the courts will probably rule that it is, in fact, a poll tax.

 

And personally, I'd agree with them. The RIGHT to vote shouldn't be infringed, but the RESPONSIBILITY to do it properly should be mandated - which means the states should require polling centers to identify voters, and states should be required to define clearly and up-front what does and does not constitute a valid vote (so that we don't run into the 2000 Florida "It's dimpled, so it represents the intent of the voter, even if it's not a valid vote" crap again.)

With this court I'm not going to rule anything out, but unless it was intended as a barrier to keep people out, or the price was so high as to be discriminatory, it would not be a poll tax. And with a DMV ID available everywhere for $10 +/- it would be hard to make the argument with a straight face.

[DC Tom]

With this court I'm not going to rule anything out, but unless it was intended as a barrier to keep people out, or the price was so high as to be discriminatory, it would not be a poll tax. And with a DMV ID available everywhere for $10 +/- it would be hard to make the argument with a straight face.

 

Some people can't even afford the $10 (I know a few).

 

And since when does a poll tax only become a poll tax above a certain dollar amount? That's just stupid. It's very easy: you have to pay money to vote, it's a poll tax.