I’m posting this in the Elections forum, because it’s about voting.
South Carolina’s new voter ID law was shut down by the Justice Department today; it seems that South Carolina has a past history of disenfranchising minorities.
[
I think it’s the correct move, even if SC did not have a history of failing to protect voting rights.
“tens of thousands of minorities in South Carolina might not be unable to cast ballots under the law.”
Ummm…so Mr. Perez thinks minorities should be unable to cast ballots?
Some don’t vote even less.
It was either a typo on the OP’s part or the original article had it, but has since been corrected.
It always amuses me how some people rail against voter ID laws. I mean, you need an ID to buy cigarettes and booze, for God’s sake, so why not to vote?
I’m gonna go with “because cigarettes and booze aren’t constitutional rights” for $1000, Jack.
Because cigarettes and booze are not guranteed by the Constitution.
Because large segments of the population currently don’t have IDs and have been voting.
So by demanding it, you have large groups of people who suddenly can’t vote. If anything we should make it easier to vote. I’d prefer universal citizen registration, myself.
**OMG **only likes certain parts of the constitution.
This bears repeating often these days for some odd reason so here goes:
**Because the right to vote is guaranteed in the constitution.
Buying cigarettes, alcohol, driving or any of the other things frequently brought up in these arguments aren’t constitutionally guaranteed.**
How many more times until this sinks in?
Must be a sad life where booze and cigarettes just as important as voting.
Umm…I’m going with “never,” Alex.
Nobody really believes that argument (equating booze and voting), anyway. It’s so obviously a red herring.
Oh now you know I knew the answer. I just think we should repeat that pesky little fact until people drop the comparison. Maybe then they will acknowledge what their real objection is.
OMG - how about some cites as to the lack of voter ID being a real problem? Eg, widespread fraud that has resulted in skewed elections?
Seems like the voter ID requirement drive is solving for a problem that doesn’t exist, or it’s trying to reduce the eligible voters that tend to vote more Democratic Party.
Plus people who feel so strongly about it could always do what we do here, and actually make your voter registration BE a picture ID, issued AT NO COST TO THE VOTER.
Except then they’d propose that you should go to the polling place with your proof of citizenship. Preferrably the long-form original.
Oh, I know you knew 
I just think that moronicity should be pointed out whenever possible.
I think the objection is either that they can’t fathom why a person might legitimately not have a form of photo ID, or that they know why some people (mostly poor) might not, and it’s a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise those people.
Yep, it’s a solution in search of a problem. A problem that given the lack of convicitions for people illegally voting, frankly, just doesn’t exist.
For booze and smokes, as far as I know, you only need ID if the clerk thinks you look like you might be under 21 (or 18, or whatever the legal age is). What’s the voting equivalent - the elections officer thinking you look like you might not be a citizen? That you might be a felon?
Heck, up here the polling stations have the alphabetized names of all the voters registered in that riding. Go to the appropriate desk, give your name and possibly your address, they look it up, cross you off the list, hand you a ballot. I always have a driver’s license ready, but I don’t recall that last time I was asked for it, if ever. While it’s possible somebody could impersonate someone else, or falsely register a name, it’s apparently not enough of a problem to justify tighter security.
Basically, we’re less eager to seek out and punish the “wrong” people around here. We’re less paranoid that somebody will get away with something. We wouldn’t rail against voter ID laws - we just consider them unnecessary.
The only people here getting away with anything are Republican lawmakers who keep making laws like this that disproportionately disadvantage historically Democratic voters.
The law is constituional under Crawford.
The Justice Department can do this to South Carolina, but not to, say Minnesota – or Indiana.
The state can challenge this in federal court, they intend to, and I’ll take anyone’s bet here, up to, say, $500 total, that the Justice Department’s decision will be reversed.
Any takers?