And if you had read what I wrote, you would see that I said, “And the one following”, where he did in fact clarify exactly what he meant.
I don’t know how exactly you found the post in the first place, but it is obvious that you did not get it by looking at the context in which it was made.
Not all perspectives on the issue have been brought up and discussed.
The ones you brought up though, have been. Over and over and over again.
My point is, you are not bringing anything new to the table.
Yeah, the people that would find the Canada style voter ID too lenient are the the types of people that we are complaining about. They are the ones that found the voter ID we had too lax, even though there were no cases of in person voter fraud they could point to.
So, now that you understand that we are all okay with a canada style voter Id law, or you can pick just about any other ID law from most any other first world nation, and chances are, we’ll be pretty happy with that, you can join in the actual substantive conversation about how these particular laws were implemented, and whether they were done with racial intent (which we suspect), a partisan intent(which they freely admit), or whether it really was for the confidence of the vote.
If you have anything to contribute on those subjects, we’d love to hear from you.
Rather not have to re-re-re-re-re-rehash old arguments again again again again again.
My answer to the thread title, for full description, would be “, Not necessarily, but they can be, if implemented in ways that disproportionately effect minorities.”
This is the discussion as to whether or not these voter ID laws disproportionately effect minorities.
If you have something substantive to add to this discussion, we would love to hear it.
You don’t just get those out of crackerjack boxes; there’s a whole federal agency (and corresponding provincial agencies) administering our election laws.
Even then, the system’s not free of bugs and the occasional scandal, of course.
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.
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.
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 you want to know my opinions you can read my posts in this thread. If you have any specific questions about anything I’ve actually said, feel free to ask.
Also,the following:
You didn’t give any cites. Is that an admission that no one has actually said that?
No one is saying that any and every form of Voter ID is racist. After all, just registering to vote is a form of ID. No one is saying that Voter registration is racist.
However, generally in Canada if you are registered these no issue. if there is a issue, "“Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.”
In other words, a piece of mail. Those are free and come in (drumroll please…) *the mail.
*
As opposed to a picture state ID, which requires a Birth certificate. Which cost money and a great deal of time and effort.
In at least one state, as noted earlier in this thread, the State calculated what form of Voter ID was most likely to exclude blacks.
In general Voter ID in the USA is racist. If not racist, it is calculated to exclude one arty (always the Democrats) over another.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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?
(Kobach does get his hand slapped by federal and state courts alike with some regularity over his handling of elections and voter registration, to no apparent effect.)
Their feelings of confidence carried the day for decades and generations, did they not? Even GETTING cases into the federal courts was not some fast, cheap, and easy process.
That’s a great non-answer. One that can be given to almost any question:
“Are policies that give free food to poor people racist?” - “Not necessarily, but they can be, if implemented in ways that disproportionately effect minorities”
“Are policies that make subways and busses free to all racist?” - “Not necessarily, but they can be, if implemented in ways that disproportionately effect minorities”
Not to mention the implicit declaration in your non-answer that only if a policy disproportionately effects minorities can it be racist.
For instance “White people are not allowed to vote” would be a policy that is clearly racist, except according to your definition of a racist policy, it doesn’t disproportionately effect a minority, so it’s not a racist policy.
And more seriously, how do you feel about all states implementing a fingerprint identification system for voting? Would you be against that?
A Thread title is, of necessity, simplistic. The actual OP is some fifty times longer. Do read the actual Op, rather than focusing on just the few words in the title.
Read **k9bfriender **excellent post above yours for the answer.
No… it’s a serious matter that requires a permanent governmental commitment free from petty manipulations of short-sighted elected officials. As best I can tell, the U.S. has some federal commitment to ensuring voter rights nationwide, specifically the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but this was significantly weakened by Shelby County v. Holder and there’s little interest (that I know of) to rebuild it.
Homeless people don’t get mail, how can they vote?
The main argument seems to be that which you mentioned - “Birth certificates cost money and a great deal of time and effort”
But, BIG SURPRISE, not everybody thinks that they DO cost a great deal of money, time, or effort. And guess what happens to those who DON’T think it is a great deal of money, time, or effort? Yep, they get called GIANT REPUBLICAN VOTE-SUPRESSING MONSTERS!! It seems like there are a couple of threads calling for people to stop doing this.
How do YOU feel about using a fingerprint for identification in each state before voting?
The people passing the laws are generally Republicans, and the laws were crafted with the express and stated purpose of reducing Democratic voting. They do this by generally targeting minorities. Have you actually read any of the NC court transcripts?
By the way, let me point out that the only person posting outrageous stuff in all caps in this thread is you.
I am talking about people on this message board that do not agree with you on the hardship of getting a birth certificate or a picture ID (I had to put that in all caps because it looked weird in lower case)
Not everyone who supports a voter ID law is racist. But almost everyone who is a racist probably supports voter ID laws. Almost everyone who supports a voter ID law knows that it is probably being used for racist purposes.
