Are voter ID policies (and their supporters) racist?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@UltraVires

Without verification of ID at the polling place, nobody can ever tell if there is voter fraud taking place.

This is not true, although it’s one of those things that makes this issue complicated, because it seems like it should be true.

But if you actually think about how in-person voter fraud might happen, you’ll see that checking IDs at the time of voting doesn’t actually stop most of them, and the ones it does stop can mostly be detected in other ways.

So, here are a couple ways that a fraudulent vote might get cast.

1. Someone who cannot legally vote (non-citizen, felon) registers to vote, and then goes to vote. ID verification doesn’t help, because the ID you show doesn’t prove whether or not you’re legally able to vote. Felons and non-citizens can both get drivers licenses.

2. Someone who can legally vote registers to vote in more than one place, and does so. ID verification doesn’t help, because the right person is voting.

3. Someone who can legally vote registers, but doesn’t vote, and someone else who cannot legally vote votes in their place. ID helps here, but how else could we discover this? Remember, the goal is “can we tell if fraud is occurring”. Well, we already log who comes to vote, so asking them afterward about it will determine if someone was

Now, the logs of who voted are public. You can get a list of registered voters who cast ballot in the last election. Anyone who wanted to find voter fraud could start calling those people up and asking them if they actually cast a ballot. Find someone who doesn’t seem crazy or senile willing sign an affidavit that they didn’t vote (or, even better, prove that they were elsewhere on election day), and you’ve got your poster boy for voter fraud! So, by this basic, reliable, and easily accessible process, how many cases of fraud have been found?

::crickets::

Bricker, I’d still like to hear your answer for what to do when the stated case for legislation is foolish on its face. I provided an example of eliminating absentee ballots to end the public health scourge of tongue paper cuts. Totally fine? At what point should we say to the legislature “Come on!”

(We can later argue if the stated cases for voter ID are foolish. Obviously they’re not as foolish as my example. I just want to know if there’s no rationalization so obviously full of shit that we can’t see past it when it’s offered?)

[ElvisL1ves]

@Bricker

I expect a law to have a valid, neutral justification.

But the voter ID laws you’ve been trying to support, literally for years, are neither valid, neutral, nor justified. That has been explained to you patiently, repeatedly, and at length. To continue to claim otherwise is not reason but obstinacy.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Bricker

Sure. The idea is that the freedom to print newspapers means that certain other things must also be protected by that same freedom, because one simply can’t print newspapers without ink.

Out of interest; that’s no longer true today, for given values of “print”. Could that the basis for a challenge, on either side of an ink ban?

So the Supreme Court says that when the First Amendment protects free press, it necessarily protects the purchase of paper and ink, because the very ability to print a paper means you have to use paper and ink.

Mm, I’m still not sure I follow the analogy to purchasing guns (and more to the point, unless you have a gun-purchasing case to cite, neither does the Supreme Court). In 1936, I think it’s fair to say that without ink and paper, you could not create a newspaper. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that, without being able to purchase a gun, you could not keep or bear a gun. It makes it a lot harder, of course. Helpfully enough, that brings us back around to the topic of the debate; is there a standard test for “onerousness” to fulfil a right which becomes, at a practical level, a ban?

[Slash1972]

@CurtC

Sure, but that just means that you’re not socializing with the types of people for whom getting a photo ID is a burden. Those people do exist, and they exist in the millions. The fact that you don’t know any has no bearing.

Do YOU know anyone that doesn’t have an ID?

Fine, let’s get everyone a government ID. After everyone has it, THEN we can implement photo ID laws, but not before.

I would be fine with that.

[Evil_Economist]

@Slash1972

Do YOU know anyone that doesn’t have an ID?

Speaking for myself, I don’t know anyone voting age who doesn’t have an ID. I also don’t know anyone with cancer.

[Slash1972]

@Evil_Economist

The benefit is basically zero.

If that is the case, why do other countries require some sort of identification to vote? Not necessarily a photo ID, but SOMETHING is required in order to vote. Why do they do that if there is no benefit to it?

[Bricker]

@Evil_Economist

I quite frankly find it difficult to believe that any legislator voting for the law thought its purpose was to increase voter confidence, but I guess legislators are subject to the same IQ distribution as the rest of us.

Let’s guess percentages. Here’s mine: 80% voted for the law knowing but not caring or that it targeted minorities. 19% voted for the law because they didn’t like the idea of “coloreds” voting in “their” election. And 1% voted for the law to increase voter confidence, while flies flew in and out of their open mouths.

I also believe that the law increases voter confidence, and I think my style of writing and vocabulary choices should argue against the view that I’m located so far down the IQ curve as to attract flies.

So my guess would be different than yours.

For this reason, compiling guesses about the percentages involved has no particular relevance.

[Slash1972]

@iamthewalrus_3

The most important one is that you can buy a firearm any day. If you find out when you try to go buy one that you need an ID, then you can go get one and come back to buy the gun. Not so with voting. Show up to vote like you have for the last several decades, find out the rules have been changed, and you don’t get to vote. Can’t come back next week to cast your ballot.

This is a valid point, but many of the state laws I’ve seen that made an ID a requirement weren’t implemented until 2-3 years AFTER the law was passed. It’s not like anyone was hit with a new ID requirement the day before voting.

But if you just want the state to officially acknowledge that you’re a specific person, and they require you to do so to obtain your other rights, that should be covered by general taxes.

I would be cool with this proposal as well.

[Bricker]

@iamthewalrus_3

For me, I’d say there are two significant differences.

The most important one is that you can buy a firearm any day. If you find out when you try to go buy one that you need an ID, then you can go get one and come back to buy the gun. Not so with voting. Show up to vote like you have for the last several decades, find out the rules have been changed, and you don’t get to vote. Can’t come back next week to cast your ballot.

For this reason, voter ID laws that allow people to cast provisional ballots regardless of their ID, then verify their identity later (in some cost-free way) are acceptable. Indiana’s, which Bricker offered as an example, lets you do this.

Which state does not?

I also would support official state identification being free. Sure, if you want a drivers license, you can pay for the administration of the testing and the whatever. But if you just want the state to officially acknowledge that you’re a specific person, and they require you to do so to obtain your other rights, that should be covered by general taxes.

Which state does not?

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

I also believe that the law increases voter confidence, and I think my style of writing and vocabulary choices should argue against the view that I’m located so far down the IQ curve as to attract flies.

So my guess would be different than yours.

For this reason, compiling guesses about the percentages involved has no particular relevance.

I think that would put you in the 80%.

Though you have said that the reason that you support this law is to increase your confidence in an ultra-close election, you are very aware of the impact that these laws have on minorities, you just don’t care.

[bobot]

Places that don’t require an ID to vote (Illinois) do require ID to register initially There *is *a time at which a voter must prove who the voter is. Making voting itself more difficult is not rooting out fraud. It is, as is currently pushed, suppression.

[Evil_Economist]

@Bricker

I also believe that the law increases voter confidence, and I think my style of writing and vocabulary choices should argue against the view that I’m located so far down the IQ curve as to attract flies.

I suspect you’re not one of the legislators who voted for the law, so no need to check for flies.

However, if you were presented with an opportunity to vote with the NC law that was overturned, would you vote for it? If you did vote for it, would your internal monologue be “golly gee, I bet this law will really improve voter confidence!”

[Bricker]

@Revenant_Threshold

Out of interest; that’s no longer true today, for given values of “print”. Could that the basis for a challenge, on either side of an ink ban?

I doubt it. While the digital age is pervasive, I don’t see us being able to abandon ink as an expressive medium.

Any such ban would bear the burden of strict scrutiny: it would have to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest.

Mm, I’m still not sure I follow the analogy to purchasing guns (and more to the point, unless you have a gun-purchasing case to cite, neither does the Supreme Court). In 1936, I think it’s fair to say that without ink and paper, you could not create a newspaper. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that, without being able to purchase a gun, you could not keep or bear a gun. It makes it a lot harder, of course. Helpfully enough, that brings us back around to the topic of the debate; is there a standard test for “onerousness” to fulfil a right which becomes, at a practical level, a ban?

Teixera v. County of Alameda, this year from the Ninth Circuit:

We must decide whether the right to keep and to bear arms, as recognized by the Second Amendment, necessarily includes the right of law-abiding Americans to purchase and to sell firearms. In other words, we must determine whether the Second Amendment places any limits on regulating the commercial sale of firearms.
.
.
.
Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and to bear arms. See generally David B. Kopel, Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce?, 127 Harv. L. Rev. F. 230 (2014). . . As British subjects, colonial Americans believed that they shared equally in the enjoyment of this guarantee, and that the right necessarily extended to commerce in firearms. Colonial law reflected such an understanding. For instance, in Virginia, all persons had “liberty to sell armes and ammunition to any of his majesties loyall subjects inhabiting this colony.” Laws of Va., Feb., 1676–77, Va. Stat. at Large, 2 Hening 403. It came as a shock, therefore, when the Crown sought to embargo all imports of firearms and ammunition into the colonies. 5 Acts Privy Council 401, reprinted in Connecticut Courant, Dec. 19, 1774, at 3. The General Committee of South Carolina declared in response that “by the late prohibition of exporting arms and ammunition from England, it too clearly appears a design of disarming the people of America, in order the more speedily to dragoon and enslave them.”
.
.
.
Such logic led the Seventh Circuit to conclude that a regulation prohibiting most firearm ranges within the city limits of Chicago constituted a “serious encroachment on the right to maintain proficiency in firearm use, an important corollary to the meaningful exercise of the core right to possess firearms for self-defense.” Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708. Just like the firearm range in Ezell, the services Teixeira hopes to offer implicate the right to keep and to bear arms. The Ordinance’s potential interference with such services was therefore a proper basis for Teixeira’s Second Amendment
challenge.

And the Court goes on to strike down the zoning ordinance.

Here, they simply apply stricter scrutiny than “rational basis review.” They use “intermediate scrutiny,” which is enough to gut the ban.

And that’s the same thing that’s done for voter ID schemes: they have used intermediate scrutiny to conclude that there is a compelling government interest in play and that the government plan furthers that interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.

That’s the standard.

[DrCube]

@bobot

Places that don’t require an ID to vote (Illinois) do require ID to register initially There *is *a time at which a voter must prove who the voter is. Making voting itself more difficult is not rooting out fraud. It is, as is currently pushed, suppression.

You don’t need an ID in Illinois to register to vote, but you do need “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows your name and address”. Cite.

So, zero photo ID is required to vote in IL. You do need to verify your address (because you can’t register to vote unless you’ve been a resident in your precinct for 30 days).

I wonder how homeless people vote? Do they? I suspect nobody actually cares.

[bobot]

Yes, I intended to state ID generally, and not “an ID”. One has to prove who one is, which should satisfy those concerned about fraud. Unless it is not really fraud that is the concern.

[Bricker]

@Evil_Economist

I suspect you’re not one of the legislators who voted for the law, so no need to check for flies.

However, if you were presented with an opportunity to vote with the NC law that was overturned, would you vote for it? If you did vote for it, would your internal monologue be “golly gee, I bet this law will really improve voter confidence!”

Presented an opportunity to vote for it with no input beforehand? I’m in or out, can’t propose amendments?

[Grey]

What to do if you are homeless and want to VOTE on Election Day - Chicago...

Illinois residents who are homeless have the right to vote during Tuesday’s Nov. 8 presidential and statewide elections, even if they are not yet registered to vote. If you live on the street, in shelters, or doubled-up in the homes of others, you are considered homeless.

Edited to provide federal election link

[Bricker]

@bobot

Yes, I intended to state ID generally, and not “an ID”. One has to prove who one is, which should satisfy those concerned about fraud. Unless it is not really fraud that is the concern.

Should you have to use an ID that proves your citizenship?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

By this I mean that the imposition of Voter ID is an insurance policy that helps protects the public confidence in ultra-close results. If this year produced no ultra-close races, that’s fortunate, but it does not mean that the insurance policy was imprudent.

Yes but it is an insurance policy where the premium is higher than the coverage.

Its like buying a policy that costs $1,000,000/year and has a coverage cap of $17.50/year

[bobot]

@Bricker

Should you have to use an ID that proves your citizenship?

My own opinion? I would lean towards “no”. But I’m not certain. In a way, I have no problem with someone who lives here and pays taxes here also voting here. But I’m not certain.