# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/141 "2016-11-16T21:32:06Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Really? Implementing Canadian style voter ID policies has been discussed? Where? there are posters in this very thread that think that voters don’t even NEED some form of identification to vote in Canada. Maybe they missed the in-depth discussion on whether or not states could benefit from Canadian style voter ID laws. Okay, are you actually bringing up the idea of implementing Canada style voter ID here? That is in fact an item worth discussing. If you are just bringing up “other countries have voter id, why aren’t they racist?” then no, you are contributing nothing of value to the discussion. > [@](#): > > And I’ve only seen Bricker mention the fingerprint solution, only to be dismissed without a clear discussion on why that is or is not a great solution to those who think a picture ID is too onerous. Nope, he simply gets called a dumb Republican vote-suppressor or implicitly called a racist. Like I said, you should probably meander to that other thread if you are looking to catch up. When brought up in the other thread, pretty much no one objected to it. Czarcasm said something about it, though I’m not sure if he was serious. The only other objection was some issues of ease of implementation, and Bricker’s assertion that the EFF would forbid it. > [@](#): > > Complaining how? By calling them racists? If a person was okay with all the Canadian policies EXCEPT the one that said that using a piece of mail for identification was okay, would THAT person still be a racist? If someone was okay with Canadian policies, except for the types of ID that black people tend to have, then yes, I would consider that a racist policy, and those who knowingly push for it, are either racist, or they are cynically playing to race. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/142 "2016-11-16T21:34:35Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Would you support a law requiring a fingerprint be used for identification in each state before voting? I think it would be silly, pointless, and expensive. I would, however, consider it an improvement over the approaches designed to restrict Democratic voting. Of all the approaches discussed in this thread I think the Canadian approach that **Bryan Ekers** gave is the best. I also like the idea of these things being determined by non-partisan voting boards. And if a non-partisan voting board concluded that a fingerprint was the best approach, I would support that decision. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/143 "2016-11-16T22:11:29Z")
A poll tax isn’t explicitly racist either. It still had a racially disparate outcome and was banned because of it. Voter ID is basically a poll tax. A poll tax that “everyone should have in 2016” and “is available to every citizen”, but a poll tax nonetheless. You start mailing out free IDs to people who can’t drive and don’t have utility bills, birth certificates, home addresses (or even homes) then we are out of the “poll tax” woods, but I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Alabama implemented a voter ID law a couple years ago and then promptly closed DMVs in all the areas of the State where poor black people predominated. Good luck convincing me that’s not racist. ---
**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 16, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/144 "2016-11-16T23:05:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I know, the class of laws that were racist are now all in the past. > > If you’re open to past laws, then sure. Please. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/145 "2016-11-16T23:12:26Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Filing that form does not guarantee that the board will consider the application in a timely manner, much less give a favorable result in time to vote. No, but a failure to file that form means you’re complaining about a delay while refusing to exercise all the options available to you to end the delay. In other words, you are speculating that perhaps the board would act slowly, or give an unfavorable result – even though you yourself admitted that the case you knew about involved a favorable result with no onerous request for documents. I don’t agree that the law should be changed because you speculate it might not work well. > [@](#): > > She can vote IN CALIFORNIA, because California doesn’t have voter ID laws like what we have here in Kansas. If she moved here, no, she could NOT vote until she pursued one of these time-consuming options and saw it through to completion. If there’s an election in the intervening time while she is working on one of the options, too bad, so sad, no ballot for her. How is that not disenfranchisement? Disenfranchisement occurs when someone is denied the vote. What you describe is your worry that she might be disenfranchised if she moved. But even then, Kansas has Form RCD, so it seems you are speculating that she might move and then might have problems filing that form. That’s not disenfranchisement. No one has lost the ability to vote in that story. > [@](#): > > They’ve only given (public) consideration to five applications in the couple of years they’ve been in operation, and have declined to reveal how many applications were received and not given public consideration. And…? > [@](#): > > In most of the U.S., most election officials are at least officially non-partisan, and operate in accordance with published rules and regulations. The Kansas Election Board, composed solely of elected officials, has no reaisticl limit on what they can or should consider, or what they can decline to consider, so the potential for abuse is rather higher. And…? > [@](#): > > As far as “abuse of discretion and challenged in court,” do you consider bringing a court challenge to be easy, cheap, and fast for somebody in a marginalized population? > > (Realistically, any court challenge requires a lawyer or three. I don’t know how many public-interest law firms and organizations exist in Virginia, but the options are few and far between in Kansas, and even getting your case before the ACLU can be challenging.) No, in this era of interest in good challenges especially in an on-going case in Kansas, it’s a simple matter of contacting the party currently suing. > [@](#): > > I think you are missing the point: if simple evidence is so “fine,” then why make the guy jump through hoops? Why can’t he give this evidence to his county election commissioner, for example, or write it down on his voter registration application, instead of going through a time-consuming process? (All five applicants to date, e.g., have been asked to testify in person in Topeka. If you can’t travel easily, then what? Sure, you can ask for additional special arrangements, but whether to grant them is entirely in the discretion of the board.) In a representative democracy, you cannot invalidate a law by asking, “Well, why don’t they do it this better way?” > [@](#): > > Moreover, capriciousness need not be just refusal to act. “You look like you’re likely to vote Republican, so we’re satisfied with your bare recital of facts, but this person over here belongs to a demographic that typically votes for liberals, so their bare recital isn’t so satisfying.” Right now, the only standard to obtain the franchise via the form is “do Kris Kobach, Derek Schmidt, and Jeff Colyer feel satisified?”–Kobach, e.g., is the former chair of the Republican Party of Kansas and has a well-deserved reputation for hyper-partisanship. Would it make _you_ more confident of the outcome of a close election to know that a would-be voter’s franchise rests in the hands of a man who has a vested interest in the success of one of the parties? What persons allege that they provided sufficient information but were denied by the board? This is, again, a claim that something might happen that you object to, rather than a claim that something DID happen you object to. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/146 "2016-11-16T23:22:48Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Of all the approaches discussed in this thread I think the Canadian approach that **Bryan Ekers** gave is the best. I claim no credit for it, of course, though I should point out that Elections Canada not only maintains the voter rolls and shares this information with their provincial counterparts, they also are responsible for drawing up district (“riding”) boundaries. Frankly, the amount of meddling your elected officials are allowed to do is quite astonishing to me. If ever there was a temptation to corruption, this’d be it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/147 "2016-11-17T00:41:07Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > \*\*Are voter ID policies (and their supporters) racist? > \*\* > > In a nutshell, no. However, claiming that they are racist…is racist in its own right. In the real world, people have to show ID to do damn near anything these days. And yet, the anti-voter id folks are whining about how minorities can’t get IDs and it’s just soooo hard on them. > > We know well in advance when there is going to be an election. The anti-voter id folks are saying, in effect, that minorities are incapable of getting an id in that length of time. That sounds pretty racist to me. I agree with all of this and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. It’s pretty telling isn’t it? All we are saying is that you must produce photo ID in order to vote. You need multiple pieces of ID to get a job, to fly on an airplane. You need it to write checks, open a bank account, or to buy booze or cigarettes. I cannot count the number of activities in my life that require I have photo ID and carry it with me. A person simply cannot function in the year 2016 without a photo ID. Why is it automatically assumed that it will be racial minorities who are so out of touch with modern society that they will be the ones harmed? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/148 "2016-11-17T00:51:10Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree with all of this and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. It’s pretty telling isn’t it? All we are saying is that you must produce photo ID in order to vote. You need multiple pieces of ID to get a job, to fly on an airplane. You need it to write checks, open a bank account, or to buy booze or cigarettes. I cannot count the number of activities in my life that require I have photo ID and carry it with me. Which of your other constitutional rights do you think we should require an ID for you to receive? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/149 "2016-11-17T01:58:25Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Which of your other constitutional rights do you think we should require an ID for you to receive? The right to purchase arms to bear seems to be a top contender for the answer to this question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/150 "2016-11-17T04:21:08Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > I am a people too my friend. > > But, just to be clear, from an ethical or legal or constitutional standpoint, you would have no problem with a democratically controlled legislature cutting or removing absentee ballot voting for the admitted purpose of reducing republican turnout? Missed answering this earlier. Answer: is nuanced. By that I mean that I expect a law to have a valid, neutral justification. If a democratically controlled legislature cutting or removing absentee ballot voting for the admitted purpose of reducing Republican turnout, and could not offer a valid reason apart from that, then I’d believe that law should be challenged. If, on the other hand, a democratically controlled legislature cutting or removing absentee ballot voting for the admitted purpose of reducing voter fraud associated with absentee ballots, then I’d accept it as a valid exercise of legislative discretion – even if I were to learn that some members of the legislature favored the new policy because it would reduce Republican turnout. ---
**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 17, 2016, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/151 "2016-11-17T15:14:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The right to purchase arms to bear seems to be a top contender for the answer to this question. Is there a Constitutional right to purchase arms to bear? A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn’t seem to include that, just “keep” and “bear”. ---
**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 17, 2016, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/152 "2016-11-17T16:13:38Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > A person simply cannot function in the year 2016 without a photo ID. Why is it automatically assumed that it will be racial minorities who are so out of touch with modern society that they will be the ones harmed? Because the evidence suggests so, but on a correlation basis - it’s the **poor** who are less likely to have access to IDs, and in the US there’s a significant overlap between “poor” and “racial minorities”. Naturally, the size and nature of the population without ID and/or with limited access to obtaining one depends on where you are, which IDs are considered valid for that location and how easy it is to obtain them. But people who can’t afford a car are unlikely to have a driver’s license or be travelling out of the country and thus need a passport. Since I’m not one of this population I have no idea how easy it is (cost- and effort-wise) to obtain another form of government ID nor to what extent one can function without one, but (speaking from my middle-class viewpoint) I suspect that if you’re far enough down the economic food chain you can operate without one and any cost for an ID you can normally get along without is too much. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/153 "2016-11-17T16:21:09Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Is there a Constitutional right to purchase arms to bear? A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn’t seem to include that, just “keep” and “bear”. Even the most texty of textualists would find that the right to a free press is implicated if the government criminalizes the purchase of ink and paper. So, yes. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/154 "2016-11-17T16:23:47Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Is there a Constitutional right to purchase arms to bear? A strict interpretation of the Second Amendment doesn’t seem to include that, just “keep” and “bear”. Yes. Certain things are coextensive rights with the 2nd amendment. The right to purchase, practice, train, etc. See [Ezell v. Chicago:](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1573261.html) > [@](#): > > The plaintiffs challenge only the City’s ban on firing ranges, so our first question is whether range training is categorically unprotected by the Second Amendment. Heller and McDonald suggest to the contrary. The Court emphasized in both cases that the “central component” of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, family, and home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 599; McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3048. **The right to possess firearms for protection implies a corresponding right to acquire and maintain proficiency in their use; the core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective. Several passages in Heller support this understanding.** Examining post-Civil War legal commentaries to confirm the founding-era “individual right” understanding of the Second Amendment, the Court quoted at length from the “massively popular 1868 Treatise on Constitutional Limitations” by judge and professor Thomas Cooley: “[T]o bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them ․; it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” 554 U.S. at 616, 617–18 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. at 619 (“ ‘No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions, practices in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right.’ “ (quoting Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of the Leading Topics in the Law of the Land 333 (1880))). Also see [Texeria v. County of Alameda](https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/05/16/13-17132.pdf): > [@](#): > > But an exemption for certain “laws imposing conditions > and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” Heller, > 554 U.S. at 626–27, does not mean that there is a categorical > exception from Second Amendment scrutiny for the > regulation of gun stores. If such were the case, the County > could enact a total prohibition on the commercial sale of > firearms. There is no question that “[s]uch a result would be > untenable under Heller.” Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 92 n.8. > Indeed, if all regulations relating to the commercial sale of > firearms were exempt from heightened scrutiny, there would > have been no need to specify that certain “conditions and > qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” were > “presumptively lawful.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–27 & n.26; > see Kopel, supra, at 236 (“[T]he exception proves the rule. > There is a right to the commercial sale of arms, but it is a > right that may be regulated by ‘conditions and > qualifications.’”). As discussed, supra, **we are satisfied that > the historical right that the Second Amendment enshrined > embraces the purchase and sale of firearms.** (my bold in each of the above quotes) To be fair, these are federal appellate decisions, and both are on some form of appeal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/155 "2016-11-17T16:28:56Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Could you give an or some examples of laws which you believe _are_ racist, as a general class of laws? > [@Bricker](#): > > So far as I know, the class of laws that were racist are now all in the past. > > If you’re open to past laws, then sure. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Please. Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924: > [@](#): > > That the State registrar of vital statistics may, as soon as practicable after the taking effect of this act, prepare a form whereon the racial composition of any individual, as Caucasian, Negro, Mongolian, American Indian, Asiatic Indian, Malay, or any mixture thereof, or any other non-Caucasic strains, and if there be any mixture, then, the racial composition of the parents and other ancestors, in so far as ascertainable, so as to show in what generation such mixture occurred, may be certified by such individual, which form shall be known as a registration certificate. > . > . > . > No marriage license shall be granted until the clerk or deputy clerk has reasonable assurance that the statements as to color of both man and woman are correct. > If there is reasonable cause to disbelieve that applicants are of pure white race, when that fact is stated, the clerk or deputy clerk shall withhold the granting of the license until satisfactory proof is produced that both applicants are “white persons” as provided for in this act. > . > . > . > It shall hereafter be unlawful for any white person in this State to marry any save a white person, or a person with no other admixture of blood than white and American Indian. For the purpose of this act, the term “white person” shall apply only to the person who has no trace whatsoever of any blood other than Caucasian; but persons who have one-sixteenth or less of the blood of the American Indian and have no other non-Caucasic blood shall be deemed to be white persons. All laws heretofore passed and now in effect regarding the intermarriage of white and colored persons shall apply to marriages prohibited by this act. Want another? ---
**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 17, 2016, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/156 "2016-11-17T17:06:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Even the most texty of textualists would find that the right to a free press is implicated if the government criminalizes the purchase of ink and paper. > > So, yes. **Bricker** , even I know there’s a big gulf between having the Constitutional right to do something and having that something be criminalized. So far as I’m aware, there’s no Constitutional right to purchase ink and paper, to continue your example. > [@Bricker](#): > > Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924: > > Want another? As a general “class of laws”, was the question. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/157 "2016-11-17T17:15:02Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > **Bricker** , even I know there’s a big gulf between having the Constitutional right to do something and having that something be criminalized. Sure… but a right simply means that the denial of the act by the government can be stopped, that there is a legal remedy. I used “criminalized,” merely as an example. Even the most texty textualist S would agree there is a First Amendment remedy if the government prohibited the purchase of ink and paper in a civil context. > [@](#): > > So far as I’m aware, there’s no Constitutional right to purchase ink and paper, to continue your example. There is, grounded in the First Amendment. > [@](#): > > “Class of laws”, was the question. Sure. The class of laws commonly known as racial purity or anti-miscegenation laws, of which I posted an example. ---
**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 17, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/158 "2016-11-17T17:21:03Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Yes. Certain things are coextensive rights with the 2nd amendment. Thanks! That’s very interesting. To tie it back in to the topic of the thread, what does this mean for the implications of practical barriers to being able to fulfil that right? I was halfway through a post writing about how your second cite especially is useful in terms of this analogy, given it talks about how the secondary right to purchase can have conditions placed on it, much as with voting. But then I thought… that’s a secondary right as implicated by the text (per that), not the primary right. An analogous situation, compared with requiring documentation to be presented for each exertion of the right of voting, might be requiring documentation to be presented for each exertion of the right to bear or keep arms. I’m not quite sure how that would work. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2016, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/159 "2016-11-17T17:28:57Z")
Supporters? Mostly not. (They’re the marks.) The policy? Yeah, because it disproportionately negatively affects people of particular races. And there are workable alternatives that don’t. (\*\*Bricker \*\*himself came up with one, using fingerprints.) It’s also antidemocratic, since its sole goal is to disenfranchise. There is no evidence of fraud, and this is well known, so any claim that this is the purpose is clearly false. Which leaves only the less than honorable purposes. The claim that it will increase confidence in the fairness of elections is technically true, but you can’t very well claim you’re fighting a perceived lack of integrity in the voting process when you are the one creating said perception. That’s con man stuff. That is what is going on here. Republicans trying to con people into letting them disenfranchise Democratic voters (by disenfranchising minorities). In that light, it’s not nearly so surprising that said party is now led by an actual con man. ---
**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 17, 2016, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/160 "2016-11-17T17:29:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure… but a right simply means that the denial of the act by the government can be stopped, that there is a legal remedy. > > I used “criminalized,” merely as an example. Even the most texty textualist S would agree there is a First Amendment remedy if the government prohibited the purchase of ink and paper in a civil context. On what basis? > [@](#): > > Sure. The class of laws commonly known as racial purity or anti-miscegenation laws, of which I posted an example. I’d have appreciated a full answer as to which class of law you were referring to, is all I mean. Anyway, thank you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=9)