# 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:** 17
**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 23, 2016, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/321 "2016-11-23T22:05:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I’ve mentioned a couple of times before, there’s certainly a point at which the cost incurred becomes so great that it’s impermissible – still, to be sure, a matter of priorities, but in my view the wrong priority to demand. Obviously, the issue is that the cost incurred is different for different people, and for some people, the cost is indeed too great. As I mentioned before, there are about 1.5 million Americans who live on less than $2 of cash a day (they have other sources of in-kind “income”, like food or housing provided, but you can’t use those to pay state ID fees). And, on the other hand, almost anyone who makes much more than the poverty line probably already has the id required. That seems _remarkably_ inequitable to me. But I guess you know all that and just don’t care. > [@](#): > > The right priority is (generally) where the legislature has set the mark now and the courts have approved it. You keep arguing some variant of this point, and I’m not sure I understand why you are arguing it. I understand deferring to the wisdom of the legislature on issues you’re not informed about. But you’re _clearly_ informed about this issue. You’ve spent significant time debating it. So what do _you_ think it should be? I’m not asking you to dispute the very concept of our government and how it creates laws. Legislatures can be _wrong_. That doesn’t make the laws they pass invalid, or the system unworkable. But you can take a position on a law other than “I agree we should have laws passed by a legislature”. So, I’ll take a position that any law that requires identification and doesn’t make the procurement of that identification, _including_ any prerequisites, equally available to people, regardless of financial resources, is a bad law. I don’t want it, and I’d strongly consider voting against any legislator who supported it. You could take a position, too, and it wouldn’t mean you think we shouldn’t have laws. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2016, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/322 "2016-11-23T22:37:15Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Obviously, the issue is that the cost incurred is different for different people, and for some people, the cost is indeed too great. > > As I mentioned before, there are about 1.5 million Americans who live on less than $2 of cash a day (they have other sources of in-kind “income”, like food or housing provided, but you can’t use those to pay state ID fees). And most of them already have ID, because they obtain government assistance of some kind that already mandates ID. > [@](#): > > That seems _remarkably_ inequitable to me. But I guess you know all that and just don’t care. Why do you suppose opponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who are in the position of supposed woe? It’s because, when you drill down, you almost always find that there is an equitable answer. The people that actually worry you are not the people with a strong desire to vote. It’s the indifferent voter who might vote if he thinks of it but is unwilling to invest any real effort in the issue. Right? > [@](#): > > You keep arguing some variant of this point, and I’m not sure I understand why you are arguing it. I understand deferring to the wisdom of the legislature on issues you’re not informed about. But you’re _clearly_ informed about this issue. You’ve spent significant time debating it. So what do _you_ think it should be? I’m not asking you to dispute the very concept of our government and how it creates laws. Sure you are. Because I have an opinion and it differs from yours. So I’m pointing out two basic truths: 1. This is not an issue that permits an objective resolution. It depends on how the competing interests are weighed. So the fact that I weigh them differently than you do does not mean I am wrong any more than it means you are wrong. We cannot place the issues on a scale and observe that voter confidence weighs 12.4 kilocivics and ease of ballot access weighs 19.2 kilocivics and therefore voter confidence is outweighed. 2. In our government system, when citizens disagree about what laws are wise, there is a way to resolve the disagreement. > [@](#): > > You could take a position, too, and it wouldn’t mean you think we shouldn’t have laws. My position is that Indiana’s Voter ID scheme, and others like it, create such a small burden on the voter that their benefits are well worth it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/323 "2016-11-24T00:41:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you suppose opponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who are in the position of supposed woe? Why do you suppose proponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who cast fraudulent votes? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/324 "2016-11-24T01:10:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you suppose opponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who are in the position of supposed woe? > > It’s because, when you drill down, you almost always find that there is an equitable answer. The people that actually worry you are not the people with a strong desire to vote. It’s the indifferent voter who might vote if he thinks of it but is unwilling to invest any real effort in the issue. Right? Wrong, and also wrong on the bit about not finding actual people: > **[NBC's Ronan Farrow Investigates How Strict Voter ID Laws Disenfranchise...](https://www.mediamatters.org/nbc/nbcs-ronan-farrow-investigates-how-strict-voter-id-laws-disenfranchise-democrats-students-poor)** > > From the November 3 edition of NBC's Today: > [@](#): > > NBC’s Ronan Farrow Investigates How Strict Voter ID Laws Disenfranchise Democrats, Students, The Poor, And People Of Color > > Farrow: “States With These Laws See A Drop In Turnout Of About One To Two Percentage Points,” Which “Could Be Enough … To Swing The Race” > [@](#): > > CHARDA HANAMADAS: I just felt so stunned and disenfranchised and angry. I should be able to go to my middle school two blocks from my house and be able to cast my vote, just like every other American. > > FARROW: Charda Hanamadas lives in Wisconsin. She’s a mother of three and a public school teacher, and this year, she was told she wouldn’t be able to vote. > > HANAMADAS: I voted in every election since I was 18 years old. > > FARROW: But this year a new voter ID law took effect in Wisconsin limiting the ID you can use at the polls. Charda is an American citizen who immigrated from Ireland when she was just 6 weeks old. She has an Illinois driver’s license, but not a Wisconsin issued photo ID or current passport. The DMV said she needed naturalization papers, which US immigration services told her would cost $345 and take many months to get. Charda struggles to make her teacher’s salary cover treatment for her twin daughters’ cystic fibrosis. It was too much. > [@](#): > > Zack had a social security card, pay stubs, and an Illinois ID, but not a birth certificate. That entitled him to a temporary voter ID under Wisconsin law, but Zack was repeatedly told that was not an option. And when we showed students at nearby University of Wisconsin-Madison the list of valid forms of identification, some were surprised. > > […] > > Molly McGrath of the voter advocacy group Vote Riders, is pushing back against the laws. > > MOLLY MCGRATH: New voters have to learn about the law and what ID they need to show. It’s a learning curve for everyone. > > FARROW: She helped record Zack and others being turned away from registration, stories that led a federal judge to order an investigation. So far, courts have struck down or narrowed voter ID laws in seven states finding they discriminate against minorities. One judge writing that in North Carolina, “the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.” But the laws have numerous defenders. > [@](#): > > FARROW: After weeks of lobbying from Vote Riders Charda had a breakthrough this week. The DMV saying they would make an exception to the rules and give her a temporary voter ID, but she says no one should have to fight to vote the way she has, and according to the data, a lot of people never win that fight. A study by the Government Accountability Office showing that states with these laws see a drop in turnout of about one to two percentage points. Guys that may not seem like a lot but in a lot of close states that could be enough, tens of thousands of people, to swing the race. > > MATT LAUER (CO-HOST): So you’ve got to make a phone call, go online, find out exactly what’s required in your state. > > FARROW: That’s exactly right, but for certain people, you know, some homeless people who don’t have proper identification, disproportionately it’s people of color as we mentioned, there are very serious obstacles to getting these forms of ID. ---
**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 24, 2016, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/325 "2016-11-24T01:33:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Why do you suppose opponents of these laws have such trouble finding actual people who are in the position of supposed woe? Do they? Here’s the [Center for American Progress](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/) on the effect of these laws. > [@](#): > > The people that actually worry you are not the people with a strong desire to vote. It’s the indifferent voter who might vote if he thinks of it but is unwilling to invest any real effort in the issue. Right? No, those really aren’t the people who worry me. Although I think that it’s telling that you think that pre-registering, going to a polling place, waiting in line (generally for a lot longer if you’re black), filling out a ballot, and turning it in aren’t enough evidence of a lack of indifference. This statement makes me think that you’re actually in favor of _arbitrary_ restrictions to voting, since they’d result in fewer people without a “strong desire to vote” doing so. > [@](#): > > 1. In our government system, when citizens disagree about what laws are wise, there is a way to resolve the disagreement. Yeah, I get that. It just seems to me to be the weakest possible argument to make on a message board. On a message board, when posters disagree about an issue, they try to make convincing arguments for their position. All you’re doing is asserting that there must be an argument that’s convincing, because look, _something_ convinced the lawmakers. So, maybe expand on your idea of “voter confidence”? What argument can you make that it’s actually served by this law? Could we achieve it in some other way, that _didn’t_ make it harder for poor black people to vote? Personally, this voter would be more confident in elections if I thought that everyone who had a legal right to vote and showed up at the polling place could do so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/326 "2016-11-24T02:27:03Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Wrong, and also wrong on the bit about not finding actual people: > > [http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/03/nbcs-ronan-farrow-investigates-how-strict-voter-id-laws-disenfranchise-democrats-students-poor-and/214268](http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/03/nbcs-ronan-farrow-investigates-how-strict-voter-id-laws-disenfranchise-democrats-students-poor-and/214268) As I said, when you drill down, you find there is an equitable answer. Which person in your link do you contend failed to get an equitable answer? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/327 "2016-11-24T02:59:01Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Do they? Here’s the [Center for American Progress](https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2016/11/11/292322/voter-suppression-laws-cost-americans-their-voices-at-the-polls/) on the effect of these laws. Yes, shockingly, the Center for American Progress shares your views, but like you is unable to identify specific people who, when their cases are closely examined, lack an equitable solution. > [@](#): > > This statement makes me think that you’re actually in favor of _arbitrary_ restrictions to voting, since they’d result in fewer people without a “strong desire to vote” doing so. No, I’m in favor of only those restrictions that relate to assuring voter confidence and integrity of results. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I get that. It just seems to me to be the weakest possible argument to make on a message board. On a message board, when posters disagree about an issue, they try to make convincing arguments for their position. That ship has sailed. The crux of our disagreement here is not susceptible to convincing argument, since that crux rests on how much subjective value we each assign to the different aspects in play. > [@](#): > > All you’re doing is asserting that there must be an argument that’s convincing, because look, _something_ convinced the lawmakers. And the public. > [@](#): > > So, maybe expand on your idea of “voter confidence”? What argument can you make that it’s actually served by this law? Could we achieve it in some other way, that _didn’t_ make it harder for poor black people to vote? Yes. I have long argued that we collect fingerprints from every voter. This could convict an illegal voter even better than Voter ID. But neither Democrats not Republicans are interested in this common-sense solution. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/328 "2016-11-24T04:41:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I said, when you drill down, you find there is an equitable answer. Which person in your link do you contend failed to get an equitable answer? What voters there did not show a desire to vote? ---
**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 24, 2016, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/329 "2016-11-24T05:06:01Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, shockingly, the Center for American Progress shares your views, but like you is unable to identify specific people who, when their cases are closely examined, lack an equitable solution. Wait a minute. My previous link mentioned a specific individual who had been unable to get a voter id because he lacked the funds to pay court costs to fix a clerical error on his birth certificate. You disregarded that case because (I think) you misinterpreted it as someone who had voluntarily changed his name and maybe hadn’t completed the paperwork? I don’t know how common clerical errors like that are. Anecdotes aren’t data, but my son’s birth certificate also had a clerical error on it when it was first issued. Luckily, his parents are literate and comfortable enough navigating bureaucracy to get it fixed. I bet the guy in the article wasn’t so lucky. > [@](#): > > No, I’m in favor of only those restrictions that relate to assuring voter confidence and integrity of results. Would you describe the fact that less-devoted voters are less likely to vote the more restrictions there are as an unfortunate side effect, a convenient benefit, or totally value-neutral? > [@](#): > > The crux of our disagreement here is not susceptible to convincing argument, since that crux rests on how much subjective value we each assign to the different aspects in play. That is where our disagreement lies, but I don’t think you’re right that subjective value is something that’s totally immune to argument. On a personal note, I believe you are a man of integrity, and I do not think you are racist. And you are generally good at making your case. You have caused me to change my mind about some issues over the years. I am open to changing my mind about this issue. But your arguments have not been convincing. I’ll be away from the internet for several weeks, so if you want to leave this as agree to disagree, that’s fine. If you’re interested in continuing the discussion later, I am too. > [@](#): > > Yes. I have long argued that we collect fingerprints from every voter. This could convict an illegal voter even better than Voter ID. Interesting. My first reaction is that I don’t want the government to have my fingerprints on file. But I’ll think about this. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/330 "2016-11-24T06:13:40Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > What voters there did not show a desire to vote? None of them showed a desire to expend the requisite effort to meet reasonable standards. A person who is born overseas cannot show any proof that she is now a citizen. And her expectation appears to be, “Well, just trust me.” That’s not reasonable. Who else you got? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/331 "2016-11-24T06:22:22Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Wait a minute. My previous link mentioned a specific individual who had been unable to get a voter id because he lacked the funds to pay court costs to fix a clerical error on his birth certificate. You disregarded that case because (I think) you misinterpreted it as someone who had voluntarily changed his name and maybe hadn’t completed the paperwork? No, I did not. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how common clerical errors like that are. Anecdotes aren’t data, but my son’s birth certificate also had a clerical error on it when it was first issued. Luckily, his parents are literate and comfortable enough navigating bureaucracy to get it fixed. I bet the guy in the article wasn’t so lucky. And when he turned 18? AT what point is he responsible for doing the normal stuff that people do, like getting photo ID? > [@](#): > > Would you describe the fact that less-devoted voters are less likely to vote the more restrictions there are as an unfortunate side effect, a convenient benefit, or totally value-neutral? I have a personal opinion that’s a slight positive, because I think the electorate’s decisions are better when people are involved. But that’s my own opinion only. > [@](#): > > On a personal note, I believe you are a man of integrity, and I do not think you are racist. And you are generally good at making your case. You have caused me to change my mind about some issues over the years. I am open to changing my mind about this issue. But your arguments have not been convincing. I’ll be away from the internet for several weeks, so if you want to leave this as agree to disagree, that’s fine. If you’re interested in continuing the discussion later, I am too. Happy to – and thank you for the kind words. > [@](#): > > Interesting. My first reaction is that I don’t want the government to have my fingerprints on file. But I’ll think about this. You’re not alone…but think about it. It’s an unambiguous ID that every already has for free. What about your concern outweighs those benefits? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/332 "2016-11-24T10:53:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > None of them showed a desire to expend the requisite effort to meet reasonable standards. A person who is born overseas cannot show any proof that she is now a citizen. And her expectation appears to be, “Well, just trust me.” > > That’s not reasonable. > > Who else you got? The point was that she did show that it was reasonable. Besides pointing that you did even ignore that indeed many do show an effort to vote, what it is not reasonable here is to deny what took place. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/333 "2016-11-24T11:56:15Z")
It’s a nifty approach. 1. Insist on “reasonable standards” for voters to meet. 2. Define “reasonable standards” as “requirements it’s easy for me to meet but which may very likely be less easy for people who tend to vote differently from me to meet”. 3. When some of those people fail to meet those standards, blame them for not wanting to vote enough and suggest that this proves that the system works. 4. Claim “voter confidence” has been increased. 5. Define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system works in my favour”. 6. Be very careful not to define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system is designed to facilitate participation by all eligible voters, thus achieving a more representative and democratic result”. 7. Repeatedly remind critics that this approach is perfectly legal and therefore must be right. 8. Profit! ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/334 "2016-11-24T13:51:27Z")
You can skip steps 1-6, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/335 "2016-11-24T20:12:30Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The point was that she did show that it was reasonable. Besides pointing that you did even ignore that indeed many do show an effort to vote, what it is not reasonable here is to deny what took place. What scientific scale did you use to determine reasonableness? In what units is it measured? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/336 "2016-11-24T20:14:08Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > It’s a nifty approach. > > 1. Insist on “reasonable standards” for voters to meet. > > 2. Define “reasonable standards” as “requirements it’s easy for me to meet but which may very likely be less easy for people who tend to vote differently from me to meet”. > > 3. When some of those people fail to meet those standards, blame them for not wanting to vote enough and suggest that this proves that the system works. > > 4. Claim “voter confidence” has been increased. > > 5. Define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system works in my favour”. > > 6. Be very careful not to define “voter confidence” as “confidence that the system is designed to facilitate participation by all eligible voters, thus achieving a more representative and democratic result”. > > 7. Repeatedly remind critics that this approach is perfectly legal and therefore must be right. > > 8. Profit! And? Let’s assume for a moment that you’re correct. What can you do about it? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/337 "2016-11-24T20:23:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What scientific scale did you use to determine reasonableness? In what units is it measured? It has the pointed here that I never claimed this to be a science, and neither you are using it in this subject. The item to measure is that the person being talked about here did vote with no issues for 18 years and only a new regulation changed that. A regulation that actually made it a big burden under her circumstances. The fact in this case are that even the ones making the rules in the state realized that the rules were really out of whack for her case and for several others. And that many judges have realized that many of the proponents of the new rules are indeed using fig leafs to target people that usually vote Democratic. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2016, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/338 "2016-11-24T22:38:22Z")
Correction of last post: \* It needs to be pointed out here\* that I never claimed this to be a science, and neither you are using it in this subject. The item to measure is that the person being talked about here did vote with no issues for 18 years and only a new regulation changed that. A regulation that actually made it a big burden under her circumstances. The facts in this case are that even the ones making the rules in the state realized that the rules were really out of whack for her case and for several others. And that many judges have realized that many of the proponents of the new rules are indeed using fig leafs to target people that usually vote Democratic. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2016, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/339 "2016-11-25T03:26:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Correction of last post: > > - > > It needs to be pointed out here\* that I never claimed this to be a science, and neither you are using it in this subject. The item to measure is that the person being talked about here did vote with no issues for 18 years and only a new regulation changed that. A regulation that actually made it a big burden under her circumstances. > > The facts in this case are that even the ones making the rules in the state realized that the rules were really out of whack for her case and for several others. And that many judges have realized that many of the proponents of the new rules are indeed using fig leafs to target people that usually vote Democratic. And many other judges have not, most especially six justices of the US Supreme Court. So if a particular state law is too onerous, and the courts strike it, I am fully supportive of that outcome. But since the basic elements of Voter ID were upheld by a 6-3 ruling of the US Supreme Court, what’s the use of pointing out other judges’ views? Those judges can’t make final rulings in the federal system. So you agree this is not a science, but still want me to accept the claim that the burden on the voter is too big. But I don’t agree it’s too big. You can’t tell me how many millicivics the burden even weighs; why do you assert that I must accept your judgement that it’s too heavy? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2016, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/340 "2016-11-25T04:02:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And many other judges have not, most especially six justices of the US Supreme Court. > > So if a particular state law is too onerous, and the courts strike it, I am fully supportive of that outcome. But since the basic elements of Voter ID were upheld by a 6-3 ruling of the US Supreme Court, what’s the use of pointing out other judges’ views? Those judges can’t make final rulings in the federal system. > > So you agree this is not a science, but still want me to accept the claim that the burden on the voter is too big. But I don’t agree it’s too big. You can’t tell me how many millicivics the burden even weighs; why do you assert that I must accept your judgement that it’s too heavy? You really do miss a lot form many previous discussions, the judgment is that it should not be too heavy all right, but as the example showed what the government should do is not to just concentrate on the part about making the IDs the rule (something that many do accept as a valid thing to do) but then they willfully ignore how the rule does affects the most people that for some “unfathomable” reason are the people that one opposes. Yeah, that other part of what the new rules should integrate (making it easier for the ones affected to get the IDs) can be due to political reasons, but those blocks have some racial and class warfare reasons coming from the history of most of the places were the abuses are taking place [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts\_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a-photo-id-so-you-can-vote-is-easy-unless-youre-poor-black-latino-or-elderly/2016/05/23/8d5474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html) > [@](#): > > HOUSTON — In his wallet, Anthony Settles carries an expired Texas identification card, his Social Security card and an old student ID from the University of Houston, where he studied math and physics decades ago. What he does not have is the one thing that he needs to vote this presidential election: a current Texas photo ID. > > For Settles to get one of those, his name has to match his birth certificate — and it doesn’t. In 1964, when he was 14, his mother married and changed his last name. After Texas passed a new voter-ID law, officials told Settles he had to show them his name-change certificate from 1964 to qualify for a new identification card to vote. > > So with the help of several lawyers, Settles tried to find it, searching records in courthouses in the D.C. area, where he grew up. But they could not find it. To obtain a new document changing his name to the one he has used for 51 years, Settles has to go to court, a process that would cost him more than $250 — more than he is willing to pay. > > “It has been a bureaucratic nightmare,” said Settles, 65, a retired engineer. “The intent of this law is to suppress the vote. I feel like I am not wanted in this state.” > [@](#): > > “I hear from people nearly weekly who can’t get an ID either because of poverty, transportation issues or because of the government’s incompetence,” said Chad W. Dunn, a lawyer with Brazil & Dunn in Houston, who has specialized in voting rights work for 15 years. > > “Sometimes government officials don’t know what the law requires,” Dunn said. “People take a day off work to go down to get the so-called free birth certificates. People who are poor, with no car and no Internet access, get up, take the bus, transfer a couple of times, stand in line for an hour and then are told they don’t have the right documents or it will cost them money they don’t have.” > > “A lot of them just give up,” Dunn said. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=18)