# Are voter ID policies (and their supporters) racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039 "2016-11-15T04:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/281 "2016-11-20T23:14:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I get the vague sense you’ve forgotten that while the last voter-ID thread was in the Pit, this one is in GD where the debate is ostensibly supposed to have a certain maturity you kept complaining was impossible. That post was an illustration of why gratuitous assertions are equally gratuitously denied, as the post itself clearly identified. In other words, there could be no reasonable belief that I was advancing those assertions, since same post that had them also ended: > [@Bricker](#): > > **But of course, I don’t actually assert anything of the sort, because that’s NOT argument in a debate context.** It’s a series of gratuitous assertions, which in debate may be equally gratuitously denied. > > Which way should we work this debate, in your studied and learned opinion, **BigT**? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/282 "2016-11-20T23:24:15Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Isn’t “that’s NOT argument in a debate context” a gratuitous assertion? As is that a series of gratuitous assertions may be gratuitously denied in debate? How very meta! The answer is: generally, no. The standards of logic in debate are themselves typically held to be understood in debate. But rather than debate that assertion, since it, too, may be questioned as gratuitous: [cite.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion) > [@](#): > > Argument by assertion is the logical fallacy where someone tries to argue a point by merely assertingthat it is true, regardless of contradiction. While this may seem stupid, it’s actually an easy trap to fall into and is quite common. [Additinal cite.](http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/assertion.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/283 "2016-11-20T23:29:49Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Voters who don’t have photo ID are _so_ much more common than in-person impersonation voter fraud (the _only_ kind of voter fraud this would prevent, and which is about as common as intelligent AboveTopSecret members are) that the problems that the solution creates would so drastically outweigh the problems the solution _solves_ that no rational person could argue that it’s a good idea. I have mentioned in this (and elsewhere) that Voter ID’s value is in creating an evidentiary basis for prosecution of an illegal voter, and I gave the example of a. Non-US citizen voter. So – again – Voter ID does not simply prevent in-person impersonation. Voter ID allows the prosecution to obtain legally sufficient evidence to prosecute a non-US citizen who votes illegally. This in turn deters non-US citizens from voting illegally. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2016, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/284 "2016-11-20T23:42:41Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > And since those obstacles are easily foreseen, well-publicized, and generally fall mostly on poor black people, I still don’t accept that these laws are neutral with respect to racism. It’s one thing to desire a law for a certain neutral reason. But you can’t just ignore the actual expected results of the law. Ignore? No. Balance the expected gain against the obstacles and find the balance favors the law? Yes, of course you can. To be clear, I am not saying that you MUST. It depends on how much weight you give to the various considerations. In my view, there is a huge value in believing that an ultra close election still reached the “right” result, and a huge value in expecting people to care enough about voting that they truly regard obstacles as something to be overcome and not insurmountable barriers. > [@](#): > > How about this: Poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses. Those all had articulable neutral purposes. Are supporters of those policies racist? Yes, maybe, and yes. Poll taxes impose a requirement to vote that is absolutely unrelated to the qualifications to vote. Absent a showing that someone’s animus was directed at the poor, I’d be comfortable with the rebuttable presumption that this was racist. Grandfather clauses: same. A grandfather’s ability to cast a legal vote has no relevance. Literacy tests: maybe. I’m not blind to the history of literacy tests, and someone proposing one now bears a heavy persuasive burden because of that history. But I cannot say, especially in light of the recent elevation of Donald Trump to the status of President-Elect, that I am innocent of harboring the fleeting thought that requiring a basic grounding in civics and economics on the part of voters would not be uniformly terrible. > [@](#): > > Note that the gentleman in the article who had attempted several times to get a voter id didn’t chose to change his name. There was a clerical error on his birth certificate, and the name by which he _had always lived_ didn’t match the birth certificate. The state is entitled to verify that that story is true. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/285 "2016-11-21T00:43:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > How very meta! > > The answer is: generally, no. The standards of logic in debate are themselves typically held to be understood in debate. Your cites don’t actually back up that “typically held to be understood in debate” bit. And, oddly enough, you technically didn’t answer the question yes or no. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/286 "2016-11-21T04:19:28Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > For frivolous expenses? Would you _want_ to? Especially if that cost was to ensure that leprechauns don’t modify your vote. If you think that voting is frivolous. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/287 "2016-11-21T05:24:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have mentioned in this (and elsewhere) that Voter ID’s value is in creating an evidentiary basis for prosecution of an illegal voter, and I gave the example of a. Non-US citizen voter. > > So – again – Voter ID does not simply prevent in-person impersonation. Voter ID allows the prosecution to obtain legally sufficient evidence to prosecute a non-US citizen who votes illegally. This in turn deters non-US citizens from voting illegally. And we don’t have a way to prosecute non-US citizens who vote illegally? If our current system is incapable of catching them at any point, I fail to see why adding photo ID would help. Never mind that there’s no evidence that this is actually something that _happens_, so again, we’re chasing leprechauns. > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > If you think that voting is frivolous. :dubious: :rolleyes: If you’re living hand to mouth, voting may very well be frivolous. That is, your one vote may not be the kind of thing to burn a lot of money you would otherwise spend on staying alive on. But even then, it’s doubly insulting when the _reason_ they demand this poll tax is allegedly to stop something which virtually never happens and has _never_ swayed an election. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/288 "2016-11-21T11:29:19Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Your cites don’t actually back up that “typically held to be understood in debate” bit. And, oddly enough, you technically didn’t answer the question yes or no. I cited the intended underlying claim (that argument by assertion is a logical fallacy). My comment about what is typically understood in debate is (in my view) tangential to the main discussion, but it’s a interesting diversion. As your question exposes, any claim about what is typically understood in debate sounds at first like fair game for a participant to challenge. That is, there might appear to be a distinction between the identification of a logical fallacy and the claim that the use of that specific logical fallacy is “typically understood” to be verboten, or indeed that any logical fallacy is typically understood thusly. A logical fallacy [is a mistake in argument.](http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html) > [@](#): > > However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, that is, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error. > . > . > . > Aristotle was both the first formal logician—codifying the rules of correct reasoning—and the first informal logician—cataloging types of incorrect reasoning, namely, fallacies. He was both the first to name types of logical error, and the first to group them into categories. The result is his book _On Sophistical Refutations._ So my claim is that argument by assertion is a known and named common logical fallacy, documented in Part 5 of Aristotle’s _On Sophistical Refutations,_ which is the seminal work of documenting arguments in dialogue form – that is, debate. And my claim is that in “Great Debates,” the existence of logical fallacies and their effect on the value of an argument is by virtue of the forum itself understood as an axiom. So to explictly answer: > [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > Isn’t “that’s NOT argument in a debate context” a gratuitous assertion? No, in this context it’s an accepted axiom. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/289 "2016-11-21T11:44:41Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > And we don’t have a way to prosecute non-US citizens who vote illegally? If our current system is incapable of catching them at any point, I fail to see why adding photo ID would help. Never mind that there’s no evidence that this is actually something that _happens_, so again, we’re chasing leprechauns. To the contrary, I have elsewhere cited [the case of Ramon Cue:](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article1940482.html) > [@](#): > > In Miami-Dade, where more than half of the 2,625 names on the state’s list reside, 14 noncitizens have been removed from the rolls from a universe of 1,637 people. > > Only two had a voting record, elections officials said: Ramon Cue, who voted in 1996, and Neville M. Walters, who voted seven times since 2000. Cue told The Miami Herald he is a schizophrenic, doesn’t remember voting and believes three others have his same name and birth date. Walters could not be reached. Our current system is capable of catching them, but prosecuting them is difficult. Notice that this linked story is from 2012 and lists several examples of non-citizens voting. None were subsequently prosecuted. One reason is that Cue is able to cast doubt on the prosecution claim that he voted by claiming that he doesn’t remember voting, despite a voting record that shows he has. Waters, or someone using Waters’ name, voted seven times. The use of an ID would allow the prosecution to hand the jury a strong piece of evidence – to create a legally sufficient case for conviction. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/290 "2016-11-21T12:39:25Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > But your valid vote overrode their invalid vote, and zero voter fraud actually occurred, correct? Or did you just throw up your hands and say “I guess I don’t get to vote this year”? Did a provisional ballot so who knows? They certainly didnt ask ME for id. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/291 "2016-11-21T13:22:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Actually this is the complete wrong way to analyze the issue and this is a good example. > > While I agree with the overwhelming evidence that vaccines are safe, they are not risk free. There is a non-zero risk associated with vaccines and their administration. I personally believe the benefit vastly outweighs any and all of the potential risks, but I accept that there will be others that don’t hold the same assessment. > > So the data may conclusively say that the risk of adverse impact of a vaccine is less than 1 in 1,000,000 or whatever it happens to be, that’s where the data and factual information ends. How a person interprets and assesses the relative value is not a factual question that mere data can answer. > > If the risk is 50/50, then we’d probably agree that there are merits to both positions. If the risk is 60/40, probably the same result. At some point each person may decide for themselves that the relative risk is no longer worth the relative benefit. Data may present what those percentages are, but data will not control an individual’s assessment of that data. Data controls the boundaries of what is reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/292 "2016-11-21T13:35:26Z")
> [@Pearl\_Clutching\_Provocateur](#): > > Liberals see everything as evil white people versus minorities. > > There are plenty of local elections where there really isn’t a conservative or liberal candidate. Or it’s a minority candidate running against another minority candidate like here in California for Senator. Or the turnout is so low that a race could be determined by a vote or two. There’s a town here in California called Bell with a population that’s 95% Latino and yes the elections were being rigged. The mayor and most of the council ended up going to jail. > > Having to produce an ID is going to deter illegal behavior. Its also going to deter a lot of legal behavior. In fact it is likely to deter a lot MROE legal behaviour than illegal behavior. Voter ID laws are really a lot like gun laws that are not really designed to prevent guns getting into the hands of criminals but ARE designed to fuck with gun owners and make it harder for them to get guns. Voter ID laws are somewhat similar in that it doesn’t really deter a lot of criminal behavior but is a pain in the ass and deters a lot of legal behavior that people writing the laws don’t want (people buying guns or blacks voting). At least the gun control retardedness can be attributed to ignorant hysteria and hoplophobia, the folks in favor of voter ID laws are (or should be) fully aware of the deterrent effect this has on many otherwise eligible voters. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/293 "2016-11-21T13:43:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But they are different kinds of “overturned.” In one, the rules are made in advance in accord with the democratic process, even if you (and your “many” people) don’t like them. > > In this country, we have a system of enacting rules. The mere fact that you, and “many people,” don’t like them is utterly irrelevant. I don’t care that you, and your “many” pals, don’t like it, because I, and my many more pals, do. That’s how the governing works in this land. Get enough support for your plan and then, when your “many,” becomes enough to sway the legislature, you can change the law. > > But until you do that, stop trotting out how you feel. Why do I care how you feel? I disagree with you! I get that you feel like this isn’t a good plan. But that’s because you lost the legislative battle. This is what I don’t get. You seem content to leave the shape of access to democracy to the democratic process. A process that gave us Jim Crow laws in the south. Lets say that among the many Jim Crow laws, we could identify a law that had a disproportionate impact on blacks but was not a poll tax or literacy exam. Would you say, well, all the other Jim Crow laws have to go but THIS one, this one passes the test because even though it disproportionately impacts blacks (as it was meant to) it is not an impediment to voting, so we can pass this law that was passed along with all the other Jim Crow laws because even though the motives were suspect and the effect is discriminatory, we can make a reasonable argument for why its not an impermissible impediment to voting. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/294 "2016-11-21T13:52:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s not the tone at all. The tone of these is confidently declarative: THESE LAWS ARE WITHOUT LEGITIMACY. No, that is not the tone. The tone is “THESE LAWS ARE RACIST (and their supporters are racist or they abide racism)” > [@](#): > > people of good faith may weigh different priorities differently. I don’t think there are many informed people of actual good faith who are weighing these priorities differently in a way that does not involve racism. I think you in particular approach things in a legalistic manner that does NOT include racism but you are in the minority among the supporters of these sort of laws. > [@](#): > > By asking me to mentally sketch in the line, you seek the freedom to continue to mask your assumptions as a given. The racism has been admitted to by some of the folks who passed the laws. > [@](#): > > The beauty of representative democracy is that it gives us a way to craft public policy without requiring unanimity. My approach DOES work: we have a reasonably good vaccine policy. It’s not as perfect as it would be with King Bricker, true, but this is the price of a representative society. As Mick explains it: “You can’t always get what you want.” Our representative democracy hasn’t always worked well when it came to minority rights. (see Jim Crow). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/295 "2016-11-21T14:01:37Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is what I don’t get. You seem content to leave the shape of access to democracy to the democratic process. A process that gave us Jim Crow laws in the south. > > Lets say that among the many Jim Crow laws, we could identify a law that had a disproportionate impact on blacks but was not a poll tax or literacy exam. Would you say, well, all the other Jim Crow laws have to go but THIS one, this one passes the test because even though it disproportionately impacts blacks (as it was meant to) it is not an impediment to voting, so we can pass this law that was passed along with all the other Jim Crow laws because even though the motives were suspect and the effect is discriminatory, we can make a reasonable argument for why its not an impermissible impediment to voting. Sorry, this is a trap. It’s a logical fallacy: _poisoning the well_. It’s a Jim Crow law! No decent person would support it! The thing is, in your hypothetical you are the reliable narrator of the legislature’s unanimous intent: evil beings passing a law with racially discriminatory effect. The answer is real life is: there comes a point where the racially discriminatory effect is so grave as to mandate some sort of action. Here, however, the burdens imposed are (in my view) slight and easily overcome. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/296 "2016-11-21T14:05:47Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I don’t think there are many informed people of actual good faith who are weighing these priorities differently in a way that does not involve racism. > > I think you in particular approach things in a legalistic manner that does NOT include racism but you are in the minority among the supporters of these sort of laws. I don’t agree. How does Voter ID enjoy strong support even amongst surveyed Democrats? > [@](#): > > The racism has been admitted to by some of the folks who passed the laws. Sure. But as I explained above, if a bill passes 92-17, and you have a quote from a guy that says, “Muahahaha, I voted for this bill to keep the darkies in their place,” you still have 91 votes that are split amongst many different reasons. > [@](#): > > Our representative democracy hasn’t always worked well when it came to minority rights. (see Jim Crow). So what? It’s still the system we have. Unless you are proposing some other methoid to craft and impose laws on the populace, that is. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/297 "2016-11-21T16:39:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Literacy tests: maybe. I’m not blind to the history of literacy tests, and someone proposing one now bears a heavy persuasive burden because of that history. I think you’re constraining the history here too narrowly. When I think about this, I frame it as “I’m not blind to the history of _laws that establish restrictions on voting_”. Anyone proposing any policy that makes it more difficult for people to vote should bear just as heavy a burden. Because history has shown that one attempt after another has been made to keep the “wrong” people from voting. And I just don’t see it. The case for preventing fraud fails because no one can find any fraud. The case for “voter confidence” seems extraordinarily weak, both because there are so many other ways to accomplish that goal, and because I just don’t see how it can possibly balance out. How many feelings of confidence does it take to balance out people who have a right to vote not getting to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/298 "2016-11-21T16:58:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So my claim is that argument by assertion is a known and named common logical fallacy, documented in Part 5 of Aristotle’s _On Sophistical Refutations,_ which is the seminal work of documenting arguments in dialogue form – that is, debate. And my claim is that in “Great Debates,” the existence of logical fallacies and their effect on the value of an argument is by virtue of the forum itself understood as an axiom. That isn’t an argument, though. “By virtue of the forum itself”? Which virtue? The only quality of the forum that you refer to is the name, and I can’t believe you’d be using that as a basis. You haven’t given any _basis_ for claiming this is a “an accepted axiom”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/299 "2016-11-21T17:41:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That isn’t an argument, though. “By virtue of the forum itself”? Which virtue? The only quality of the forum that you refer to is the name, and I can’t believe you’d be using that as a basis. You haven’t given any _basis_ for claiming this is a “an accepted axiom”. The name of the forum, and the mission of the site as a whole, together argue for the use of debate to reduce or eradicate ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2016, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/300 "2016-11-21T17:49:48Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > How many feelings of confidence does it take to balance out people who have a right to vote not getting to do so? _I_ just don’t see it, because we’re not talking about prevention. Someone who doesn’t vote isn’t stopped. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=16)