# A former Republican's awakening about voter ID laws. **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 16, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911 "2012-10-16T18:36:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/21 "2012-10-17T12:41:34Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call the state supreme court apoplectic when they shut that whole thing down, would you? They concluded that the process placed an undue burden on voters and would disenfranchise them. Exactly the position taken by your opponents here. > > Besides which, your tune up until now has been that if it’s legal it’s right. Seems like you ought to be singing that the situation in PA is right. It was the outcome of the legal process, after all. Right? Sure. I have no great heartburn with what the courts in PA did. THey did not, after all, “shut the whole thing down.” They decided that the state couldn’t roll out its new IDs quickly enough to serve the 2012 election. I think that’s bending over backwards, but that’s their call to make. And the law doesn’t go away: the 2014 elections will have Voter ID in place in Pennsylvania. I’m happy enough with that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/22 "2012-10-17T12:42:39Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **Bricker** , “overwhelming public support” is not a good measure of whether something infringes on civil rights. > > Nor is what state legislatures focus on a good measure of whether it is the crux of a problem. > > Pennsylvania’s ID-getting law did not increase the hours, nor the placements, of DMV locations. > > There’s a good article linked in the OP - did you read it? What’s a good measure of whether something infringes on civil rights? I say this does not. You say it does. Why do you win? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/23 "2012-10-17T12:55:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What’s a good measure of whether something infringes on civil rights? > > I say this does not. You say it does. Why do you win? A court decision to that effect? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/24 "2012-10-17T13:04:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Voter ID laws have been passed by elected legislatures – even Rhode Island’s Democratic-controlled legislature! – and signed into law by elected governors, even Rhode Island’s Democratic governor… You know the answer to this already, we talked about it in the other thread. RI’s laws are thoughtful, prudent, and cautious. There is no urgent rush to get it all in place before the wrong sort of people vote in the upcoming election. That’s where your guys tip their hand, by desperately rushing to get it all in place so that the laws rebound to their advantage. As has been explained to you at exhaustive and exhausting length: its not about voter id, never was. Its about using that as an excuse to legislate an undeserved partisan advantage. Either you keep forgetting this, or simply hope that we have. That’s OK, we’ll remind you, we’re here to help. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/25 "2012-10-17T13:09:56Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > A court decision to that effect? OK. Then we’re agreed. Pennsylvania would have violated civil rights by rolling out the law for this election, but will be fine for the 2014 election. Indiana’s scheme passed the US Supreme Court several years ago, so we’re good there, yes? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/26 "2012-10-17T13:11:50Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You know the answer to this already, we talked about it in the other thread. RI’s laws are thoughtful, prudent, and cautious. There is no urgent rush to get it all in place before the wrong sort of people vote in the upcoming election. That’s where your guys tip their hand, by desperately rushing to get it all in place so that the laws rebound to their advantage. > > As has been explained to you at exhaustive and exhausting length: its not about voter id, never was. Its about using that as an excuse to legislate an undeserved partisan advantage. Either you keep forgetting this, or simply hope that we have. > > That’s OK, we’ll remind you, we’re here to help. RI’s laws are essentially identical to Pennsylvania’s, with the exception of the time factor. I have no particular heartburn extending the time factor to 2014 anywhere in the country. If you agree that these laws are fine if implemented in 2014 rather than 2012, sounds like we can end this discussion with agreement. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/27 "2012-10-17T13:14:32Z")
Depends on whether or not the problems are resolved, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/28 "2012-10-17T13:23:14Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Depends on whether or not the problems are resolved, doesn’t it? Inidana’s law has been in effect since 2004. DO you contend there are problems in Indiana now? Or have they been resolved? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/29 "2012-10-17T13:23:48Z")
Not for me. I want voter equality all across the board, I want money and effort spent to ensure that everyone who is legally entitled to vote can do so easily, with a minimum of hassle. What I don’t want to see is situations in inner cities where the wrong sort of people have to wait hours to vote while their white suburban fellow citizens can breeze in and breeze out. i want the states to cooperate with voter registration drives to reach out to the people. Make getting voter id easy and convenient. Bring in as many new voters as practical. Do everything reasonable and practical to ensure the voting is as easy and convenient for all citizens are we can make it. It may well be that such a situation would favor the Dems. It is a prospect I face with…oh, what’s the word again?..ah, yes!..aplomb. The calm confidence of a Methodist with four aces, to steal a line from the Master. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/30 "2012-10-17T13:25:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I have no great heartburn with what the courts in PA did. THey did not, after all, “shut the whole thing down.” They decided that the state couldn’t roll out its new IDs quickly enough to serve the 2012 election. That’s different from finding out that this feat is “impossible”, in much the same way that referring to Benghazi as “an act of terror” fails to identify the event as a terrorist attack. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/31 "2012-10-17T13:39:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > OK. Then we’re agreed. Pennsylvania would have violated civil rights by rolling out the law for this election, […] Wait, what? There are probably about 100 posts from you arguing against this very point, and suddenly, here and now, you pretend like this is a point we have in agreement? WTF? Excuse me for getting whiplash from your turn-on-a-dime conversion. I know consistency and hobgoblins and all that, but jesus. > [@](#): > > […] > but will be fine for the 2014 election. Indiana’s scheme passed the US Supreme Court several years ago, so we’re good there, yes? The cynical part of me believes that we will not see the interest from the right on pursuing the matter until July of 2014. I don’t think we will see the urgency in getting things in place that we’ve seen since the court, the public and the press put a fire under their asses. We’re presently experiencing an ad campaign that appears to still want to instill concerns on the part of certain voters. I was pleased after the debates last night to see a (relatively low budget, admittedly) commercial from the state senate making it clear that voters will be able to vote without ID. So, with the caveat that the state spends the requisite amount of time and energy in educating the public and providing suitable access to people so that they can obtain ID, I would be fine with 2014. People on your side of the argument have been suggesting that the US should simply follow the practices of the rest of the world. Would you support a national ID for the US? ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/32 "2012-10-17T14:52:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yawn. > > Another thread for the Loyal Leftists of the SDMB to band together and show their universal disdain for Voter ID. > > Meanwhile, Voter ID laws still enjoy large majority support among the actual voting public. As usual, SDMB Leftists are desperate to make sure everyone votes, except if the dumb bastards vote the wrong way, in which case the wise Leftists get to just tell the rest of the nation what to do. Care to respond to any of the points raised in the actual article linked by the OP? Do you really think that a discussion of whether a particular policy is a good one should be settled just be checking what percentage of the population supports it? If so, most Great Debates threads should be a lot shorter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/33 "2012-10-17T14:54:25Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wait, what? There are probably about 100 posts from you arguing against this very point, and suddenly, here and now, you pretend like this is a point we have in agreement? I’d be interested in seeing any of these posts that you believe were focused on the need to have such ID in place NOW, as opposed to simply having it in place. It’s true I believed there was no major problem associated with getting the laws in place now, but I’m willing to accept the courts’ judgement that this is problematic. I am, and have always been, more of the belief that these are simply good ideas, period, and the delay of only one election cycle is not a major issue. > [@](#): > > So, with the caveat that the state spends the requisite amount of time and energy in educating the public and providing suitable access to people so that they can obtain ID, I would be fine with 2014. > > People on your side of the argument have been suggesting that the US should simply follow the practices of the rest of the world. Would you support a national ID for the US? Sure – why not? That would go as far, if not farther, towards verifying who is voting, and go even farther towards making sure everyone has ID. I completely support that plan. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/34 "2012-10-17T15:14:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But the SMDB Cadre wants to impose their minority, unelected will and sweep away those laws. I am asking you to explain what you are talking about when you say this. Who here wants to “impose” their view about voter ID laws? Can you explain to me what you mean by “impose”? Is it a standard definition? If it is not a standard definition, can you say something about why you chose to use that particular term in a non-standard way? If not, can you maybe walk the claim back a little and state your position more clearly and accurately? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/35 "2012-10-17T15:16:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And yet the objections have not centered on this point. Indeed, in Pennsylvania, the state government created a new, more easily obtainable ID and still the apoplexy ensued. Every objection I have _ever_ seen raised has centered on the difficulty of obtaining ID. I note you mention a “more easibly obtainable” ID in Pennsylvania, but do not go on to explain what objections remained. If they were not about ease of obtaining, then what were they about? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/36 "2012-10-17T15:22:53Z")
FTR I, too, would be okay with (if not exactly “in favor of”) a judicious voter I.D. law which successfully requires\* states to ensure rapid and free or subsidized access to the means of obtaining that I.D., and also would be okay with (if not exactly “in favor of”) a national I.D., again with rapid and free or subsidized access. My objection (and every objection I’ve _ever_ seen presented) to the present set of voter i.d. laws is to the ways they place undue burdens in socioeconomically lopsided ways. I would go so far as to speculate that my view here is a majority one even on the left, though I think many on the left may be skeptical that any voter i.d. system would be actually _workable_ even if a “good idea in theory”. \*By “successfully requires” I mean it actually gets states to do what they’re supposed to do, rather than simply formally “requiring” something without states being particularly incentivized to be in compliance. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/37 "2012-10-17T15:41:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure. I have no great heartburn with what the courts in PA did. THey did not, after all, “shut the whole thing down.” They decided that the state couldn’t roll out its new IDs quickly enough to serve the 2012 election. I think that’s bending over backwards, but that’s their call to make. And the law doesn’t go away: the 2014 elections will have Voter ID in place in Pennsylvania. I’m happy enough with that. Well then I guess everybody’s happy. I have no problem with an ID law if there are enough resources and time available to make sure that it doesn’t cause an unreasonably disparate burden. Let’s see what happens before 2014. I suspect that Republican legislators won’t be overly anxious to provide the needed resources, but I’ll be happy if I’m pleasantly surprised. But what if, hypothetically, after everyone who wants an ID can easily obtain one, the public still has such a terrible lack of confidence in the electoral process? Should there be millions spent on an educational campaign to let the public know that all is well now? The answer is not “that’s up to the legislators”. You must have an opinion on what the legislators should do. If you were a legislator, what would you do? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/38 "2012-10-17T16:40:46Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I am asking you to explain what you are talking about when you say this. Who here wants to “impose” their view about voter ID laws? Can you explain to me what you mean by “impose”? Is it a standard definition? If it is not a standard definition, can you say something about why you chose to use that particular term in a non-standard way? > > If not, can you maybe walk the claim back a little and state your position more clearly and accurately? There’s nothing mysterious about my claim, which uses standard English words in a standard English way. The people who sought to block operation of the Voter ID laws in states which had already approved them and passed judicial scrutiny – those people unsatisfied with the outcome wanted to impose their will. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/39 "2012-10-17T16:42:31Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > The answer is not “that’s up to the legislators”. You must have an opinion on what the legislators should do. If you were a legislator, what would you do? If I were a legislator I would provide for a thumbprint to be taken at voting time and placed next to each voter’s name. Then I’d toss out the need for photo IDs in their entirety. This would meet my goal of having prosecutable evidence of in-person fraud and be a much cheaper alternative. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911/40 "2012-10-17T16:52:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There’s nothing mysterious about my claim, which uses standard English words in a standard English way. The people who sought to block operation of the Voter ID laws in states which had already approved them and passed judicial scrutiny – those people unsatisfied with the outcome wanted to impose their will. Point of order: You were talking about a contingent of people on the SDMB, but here you’re talking about people involved in a legal process. I’ll understand you to be referring to the latter from now on. In any case, I’m not aware of anyone who sought to block operation of the Voter ID laws in states which had already approved them and in which they had passed judicial scrutiny. Can you point me to the cases you have in mind? In what way did the seek to block operation? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-former-republicans-awakening-about-voter-id-laws/637911.md?page=3)