Are voter ID policies (and their supporters) racist?

Great Debates
21

I would have greater confidence in a election where people werent prevented from voting due to their race or age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/09/01/voter-fraud-is-not-a-persistent-problem/
*
A News21 analysis four years ago of 2,068 alleged election-fraud cases in 50 states found that while some fraud had occurred since 2000, the rate was infinitesimal compared with the 146 million registered voters in that 12-year span. The analysis found only 10 cases of voter impersonation, the only kind of fraud that could be prevented by voter ID at the polls.
*

*
Many election experts say the kind of voter fraud Trump is talking about — voter impersonation — is extremely rare, and not enough to tip even a close presidential election. And there is plenty of research to back that up.
“The best facts we can gather to assess the magnitude of the alleged problem of voter fraud show that, although millions of people cast ballots every year, almost no one knowingly and willfully casts an illegal vote in the United States today,” Lorraine Minnite writes in her book, “The Myth of Voter Fraud.”*

The Brennan Center’s ongoing examination of voter fraud claims reveal that voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent, and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators. Our report “The Truth About Voter Fraud” reveals most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless — and that of the few allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.

So, we have 10 cases in 12 years, as opposed to over 200000 voters disenfranchised just in Wisconsin alone in one election.

Bricker brings up Indiana as the perfect case, but:* In one instance Indiana’s photo ID law barred 12 retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana from voting in the state 2008 Democratic primary election, because they did not have photo IDs*

So just there in one election, more voters were denied their right to vote than all the voter impersonation fraud that has occurred in the last decade. In the “perfect” case of Indiana, yet.

Voter suppression will cost us four years of President trump, and a packed SCOTUS that will be asked to overturn Roe vs Wade. ACA will be repealed. and so forth

All that- to prevent one fraudulent vote per year.

Bricker- do you know what “de minimus” means? :stuck_out_tongue:

22

The opposing view is that those numbers are the voter fraud that has been detected. There could be thousands of fraudulent votes that a good ID law would catch.

23

Yep. Anything that counters what the far-left wants is intrinsically racist. :rolleyes:

24

If the far left is going for racial equality, then yes, anything that counters that is pretty much by definition racist.

Now, the far left asks for lots of things, some of which us moderates agree with, some of which we let them have to humor them, and some of which we deny, because their desires are either impractical or counterproductive. Now, racial equality is one of those things that I believe that we have in common with our more radicalized members, but there are certainly disagreements inside the party for much of the rest.

Please do not broad brush the entire democratic party for the desires of a few.

25

Wow, did you build that straw man all by yourself? :rolleyes:

26

Great!

Sure, but if that’s the case you’d need to show the specific implementation that you contended made the process unduly burdensome.

27

Just an empirical observation from debating the “progressives” on a myriad of subjects completely unrelated to race and still seeing “that’s racist!” as a rebuttal.

28

Again speaking generally – yes.

But the truth of your last statement depends on the specifics of the evidence adduced before the court. In the specific New Jersey bridge case, it appears to have been sufficient, although I admit I have not closely followed the trial.

29

There must be benefits to requiring an ID to vote, numerous other countries have an ID requirement. Or are all those countries ID policies racist too?

30

Numerous other countries have a NATIONAL ID requirement. They have a national ID, you gotta get one. :rolleyes:

We dont.

31

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.

32

Yes.

No.

The benefit is the increase in voter confidence in the results of an ultra-close election.

33

I have** no *** voter confidence* at all in the results of this recent ultra-close election, due to GOP voter suppression.

34

I wish one of my compasses had a needle that pointed South 100% of the time.
Oh, what Fun it would be to know that magnetic North is Always 180 degrees the other way…

35

I think that voter ID laws are surely classist, in that those with more economic resources and freedom will always be able to vote if they want, but those lacking such will see most of the difficulties imposed by the law.

In any population in which some race tends to be economically disadvantaged (which is extremely common), that gives the law a racist effect.

36

Like I ask my students, is XXX racist in of itself or does it reflect racism in our society? Perhaps the question we should be asking is not “Is it wrong to ask minorities for photo ID in order to vote?” but rather “Why do so many minorities NOT have a basic photo ID in order to receive the full benefits of society?”

37

If you knew (and I admit that this piece of information may be difficult or even impossible to know, so this may be more of a hypothetical), that voter efforts suppression in some of the key battleground states were responsible for reducing turnout enough to get Trump elected, would you still continue to argue that these measures increase voter confidence?

38

How is this observation relevant?

It’s already clear that these measures don’t help your confidence, but they help the confidence of others, and that’s the legitimate goal of the laws. The mere fact that you, personally, are not moved is of no relevance.

It’s as though the city council approved a plan to redecorate the town square and you objected on the grounds that the proposed decoration scheme didn’t look good to you.

In a representative democracy, we don’t require unanimous assent. We elect legislators and they make decisions, and our collective chance to rebuke or endorse their judgement comes at election time.

So what you, personally, feel is not remotely significant to the argument.

And I paid hundreds of dollars to my car insurance company this year and after all that I had no accidents!

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. It’s a contraction of the phrase de minimus non curat lex, roughly meaning that the law does not concern itself with trifles, with conduct that only violates statutes in a tiny way. It’s applied as a defense in criminal matters to assert that a violation is so small as to not warrant the court’s attention.

Of course, anyone who advances the claim bears the burden of persuading the court that his conduct is indeed so insignificant.

Here, you bear that burden, and the legislators, or the public, are your audience.

Go to it.

39

A question that has been thoroughly and repeatedly answered. I hope you have your kids find the answers to these kind of questions.

40

I’d like to work with your insurance analogy, but I don’t know how to analogize the voters who had their civil rights taken from them by mealy-mouthed partisans. Perhaps they are the bumps you drive over on the way to pay your premium?