Er no… If it is proven that the intent of a law is to discriminate against African-Americans than it would be struck down.
However, proving that these laws are intended to do so would be quite difficult short of one of the drafters being videotaped shouting “NO MORE NIGGER VOTERS!”
I think it’s quite the leap of faith to assume that a campaign based on facts and stats would get anywhere. We can’t do a damn thing about global warming because a loud minority insists on being wrong at the top of their lungs and inconvenient facts are simply dismissed. Why would the Right treat facts about voter suppression any differently?
So they figured out a way to lower the number of “wrong” votes by ginning up paranoia about non-existent voter fraud, and enacted legislation designed to help their party with a fig leaf pasted over it labeled “stop voter fraud”. So the response to this is supposed to be based on facts? Do you think for one minute that if we said that approximately 50,000 votes in Ohio were suppressed by Republican shenanigans that it would make a difference? The first thing they would do would be “prove it was EXACTLY 50,000!” Since you can never prove such a thing to their satisfaction, why try? As long as there’s a theoretical possibility that they’re preventing ONE fraudulent vote, they’ve got the fucking Ace of Trumps and nothing will matter.
Anyone who has no or little access to money is most likely on a government list somewhere? Unemployment or social security? Disability? Welfare? That’s where I would start.
Why does it matter? Because y’all are using that argument to support your claim the the Pubs are doing this to disenfranchise Dem voters or at best, that an unintended consequence is that Dem voters are disenfranchised and yet you have no proof that that even exists. And sorry to bring it up again but it was part of the court decision that no one has to prove citizenship so like y’all I’m going to make some nebulous claim that “tens or hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are voting Democrat” and that the anti-voter ID side are Dems wanting all of these illegal votes. Now I don’t know if that is true or not, but my statement has the same validity as your which is noone at all. Now if I had actual numbers …
Your third statement is flat out ridiculous. It is not disenfrachising someone if they are to lazy to get the requisite paperwork. And what does that have to do with economic status anyways? If i need my vital papers I need to deal with a county in another state. Suppose I’m to lazy to do that? Does the voter ID law disenfranchise me? Ya know, when I suggested that the county NOT providing rides to voters who dont have a car and can’t afford the bus was a form as disenfrachisment, the Dems on the board ridiculed that as stupid, yet it seems that if they are lazy too then by all means provide transportation.
And we have many times. LA County used to have a card given free to each registered voter that you used when you went to the poll. That’s a solution right there. Arizona has a way where anyone with a residence can “prove” identification just by checking the mailbox. Hell, I’d even favor state IDs (but not drivers licenses) to be free to all.
And why in 2012 are counties not virtual enough that a state/county/city agency can’t pull up vital data. I mean there is nothing on a birth certificate linking it to me other than physical possession and to get that all I need to do is sign under penalty of perjury that I’m that guy and get two peopleto say I’m that guy.
So in effect, I walk in to any agency with two buddies stating I’m Saint Cad born in LA County on February 31, 1981 to Sucha Cad and Marina nee Skratchanitch, they should be able to verify it through “The System” and there ya go. Identity (and in my case citizenship) proven up to the current standards.
Good to know you’ve got our back here, guy. Can’t wait for you to unleash some of that wrathful fury on them, rather than us.
Doesn’t the Arizona law provide a means to get an ID if you can’t afford one? Perhaps a federal law providing the same is a reachable goal? The next step would be to show people why it is in their own best interests to register because, no matter how wide the door is open, they still have to want to go through it.
Did I say that cost is the only barrier? Because it’s not, and the other functional barriers are just as much at issue.
Voter ID just passed here in suddenly all-red Pennsylvania, so this is the process a person will be facing here, not for today’s Primary, but before November.
Start with getting the identifying documentation. Government offices only accept checks or money orders. No debit cards and definitely not cash. If you have a checking account (and checks) great. If not, you’re making an additional trip to get money orders, with a fee attached for each.
It’s $10 for a certified copy of a birth certificate. But if you don’t have ID, you can’t request your own birth certificate, a family member has to get it for you. If they can order online, fantastic. If not, there are vital records offices, but there are only 6 of those for the entirety of Pennsylvania, only open 8-4 on weekdays. The other option is to call to request a form, which will be mailed and has to be returned by mail with a photocopy of the family member’s ID (something else they would have to go somewhere to get and possibly pay for) after which the certificate is mailed out. The turnaround time on that can extend to several weeks.
If you’re a woman who’s changed her name at marriage, it’s another $10 and another check or money order to get the necessary “triple seal” copy of a marriage certificate. If you can’t order that online, you have to make another daytime trip to a different government office. At least this can be done at the county seat in every county, and doesn’t require ID first.
Oops, do you have a Social Security card? Most people do, but if not, you may not be able to get one, because you don’t have the necessary ID to get this card which you need to get ID. Hopefully you’ll have something that counts. If you don’t, stop here. You do not exist. You will never prove your identity sufficiently for the state of Pennsylvania and you no longer have the right to vote.
But if you have that Social Security card, and the birth certificate and the marriage certificate, then you need the proofs of residency.
According to the PA requirements, an adult who:
must be accompanied by the homeowner/lessee of their residence. (Who has to have ID themselves, if not, stop, you also will never prove your identity and can no longer vote.) They must also bring along an *official *piece of mail (i.e. not a letter from a friend or junk mail) to show their residence.
So you have all the stuff, you may have a person in tow to vouch that you live in their house, mail to prove it further, and you go to the driver’s license center. Most are in places chosen with drivers in mind, so getting to one can be difficult for those who use public transit, paratransit or live in rural areas.
Of course, the driver’s license centers keep government hours too, though they are open on Saturday. That might necessitate taking time off from work, or having your required accompanying person take time off from work, which is fine if doing so doesn’t cause a loss of pay or jeopardy to continued employment.
For people who are able-bodied, employed or have a steady income, have a bank account, have regular internet access, have a car and the privilege of time off, it isn’t difficult to get the stuff together that you need and get an ID fairly quickly. But there are millions of people in this country to whom those conditions do not apply. The process is functionally that much more difficult with every privilege that is missing. To simply say that it’s “easy” requires either ignoring or hand-waving the conditions in which many people who have every right to vote in this country actually live and function from day to day.
Post #9 - Technically no because you need to be on SSI or 65+ for them to waive the $12 fee. However they do allow other ways to verify identity other than ID so the question is moot.
Your second point is well-taken. If it is the state’s interest to have us all have photo ID, then it should be provided free of charge. Second, if there is somebody so badly off that they cannot afford the $12 or whatever to get ID, then the issue is not can they vote, the issue is what is the government doing to help them. I’ve raised this point before and it’s kind of sad that with all of the Dems around that a Pub has to be the social conscious of the thread but if a person has to choose between $50 one-time fee for ID (including birth certificate, notary fees, ID fees whatever) and food for their family, what the fuck are you talking about voting for? Why isn’t the discussion about job placement or training or welfare that works oh and by the way getting him or her an ID on the taxpayer’s dime so that they can you know get a job that invariably requires ID and proof of legal residency.
Are any of our European friends laughing at us that this is even an issue in the US?
I support voter ID and proof of citizenship to vote. That being said, you are spot on that the bureaucracy is an absolute nightmare and that’s even assuming you can go to the local office and not have to start mailing forms all over the U.S.
look at the first line of your link. If you are 18 or older you can get your oun certificate which is pretty standard. If there is another link that says you need ID to get a birth certificate you should link to it. There should be a way to get it without ID e.g. a notary.
How does your link show that you need an SSN to get ID in Pennsylvania?
And what’s wrong with that? To get any sort of benefits (rights and privledges?)you need to prove you actually live in that state. In Colorado, you have to live here a full year before getting any benefits including resident discounts on hunting and fishing licenses.
As I was typing this, I was thinking that it’s the left that has been historically opposed to a national identification that would be with you from birth to death because it is “Big Brother”. If we had that with biometric data (fingerprint, DNA sample, do retina scans change over time?) then this is a complete non-issue even if we thrown in proof of citizenship since naturalized citizen would get one upon their oath. Don’t know if I’m throwing that out as a debate or a bemused comment.
Oh, I can help you with that! Many of us on the left have developed the capacity to keep two separate and distinct concerns in their mind. Can you fart and chew gum at the same time? Yes? Good. So can we.
And, point of fact, they are not that separate. Many of us are very concerned with the relationship of wealth to political power as it has played out in our history. And looks like will play in our future. We’d very much like to change that, sorry if we haven’t made that clear. It is kinda central to our thinking, we should have been more open about that.
As far as your demands for data go, we aren’t the ones demanding a change. Its the other guys who are tearing their hair over “voter fraud” and demanding legislation to “correct” the problem. Why is it, then, that they don’t have to prove their case to you, and offer you rock solid proof of unicorn overpopulation? Sorry, voter fraud.
They don’t have to prove that change is necessary, but we have to prove it isn’t, or that the proposed solution is worse than the disease? For that matter, two minutes riding the Googlebeast would get you skads of such estimates. You’ve seen them, yes? Giving you the benefit, I assume you have, and have solid reason to wave them away. And they would be what, exactly?
I can’t speak for the others in this thread but I once walked into my poll and couldn’t vote because someone else had voted using my name. Apparently that iota of disenfranchisement doesn’t count to your side.* I have also had students in Arizona that told me their parents were illegal aliens yet voted. The justification they gave was the the divisive amount of racism in that state. Yet I have never heard of one case, either by personal anecdote or newspaper article, of a case where someone could not get the identification needed to vote.
So why do you need to prove it and they don’t? Because I know voter fraud exists and I don’t know that the disenfranchisement of which you speak does. All your side give is assumptions. I have to admit that I am shock that we have come this far in the thread and I haven’t even heard of one case of a neighbor who was an old lady eating cat food in a shack (no utilities or water) that couldn’t vote because of not being able to afford ID. All my side may have are my anecdotes, but that’s more than your side is bringing to this discussion.
And I see that you have yet to address the point raised by a few of us Pubbies that maybe the solution is voter ID and making sure everyone has ID. Kill two birds with one stone so to speak. Address voter fraud and make sure everyone can vote who’s entitled to do so. If I missed it, please point out the post from your side of the aisle saying maybe the solution is to make sure everyone has ID and so these laws are a non-issue.
*In another thread, my story was met with the response that one case of voter impersonation was meaningless compared to the huge (yet still unsubstantiated) number of people who couldn’t vote because of ID laws.
How to get a birth certificate without ID. There is a way to get it without someone else asking: by providing photocopies (again, a cost and process) of two documents that a non-working person who lives in someone else’s house would have difficulty having, that is car registration, utility bills, pay stubs, bank statements, tax docs or a lease.
Item #3. Not a SSN, a Social Security card. And my link showed that unless you already have an acceptable photo ID, if you have a SSN but no card, you can’t actually get the card.
It’s not a problem that you have to prove your residence, though it is a problem that a cell phone bill isn’t acceptable. A Verizon landline bill isn’t magically more proof of residence than a Verizon wireless bill, and people who aren’t the homeowner/lessee are more likely to have a cell phone bill than any other kind of bill coming in.
It’s also a problem that a firearm license is acceptable but a number of other perfectly reasonable photo identification is not, for the purposes of getting an official PA ID card. Fortunately, most of those others, including military, (some not all) college and government employee work IDs will be acceptable for voting.
I think the opposition from the left to national ID has been more on the grounds of the opposition to voter ID: it doesn’t solve a problem, and the costs and process of setting up the program to get one, and the costs and process of obtaining one would make it difficult if not impossible for some citizens. Also: who would be required to have them, carry them, demand them? Police? The nosy old yentes who work at the local voting precinct? Would not having one lock someone out of voting or banking or flying on a plane? There are a million questions involved.
Now just a minute here, he has a really good idea, one that would set aside all my concerns, certainly! Simply put in place machinery to supply voter ID with an absolute minimum of expense and/or hassle! Brilliant, I love it!
Heck, it would be easy! Set up modest sized booths at the local Food King, or Piggly Wiggly. Bunches of them! All they’d need is a device to take digital photos, one of those machines for making cards with, a computer and a modem. Take a picture, put one copy on the card, the other in the data base and there you go. Any question, you check the photo in the ID with its duplicate on the database, and if they are identical, as they should be, then no prob, Bob.
Why, we could even register them as voters in the same effort, easy peasy! Imagine the joy in Republican circles as vast new numbers of diverse cultures are brought into the registered voter rolls, colored folks, Hispanic folks, young folks! They will cavort with joy! Cavort, cavort!
St., this is a splendid notion, which I wholly endorse. A pity it doesn’t seem to have occurred to your fellow Republicans. How very odd. Indeed, in a couple of instances, they have followed up with legislation to make voter registration drives more difficult and legally hazardous. Seems strange, given their boundless enthusiasm for democratic participation!
You know these people better than I, have you forwarded this excellent suggestion to any of your fellows? It does seem to have eluded them, does it not? Come to think on it, I don’t recall hearing of even one Republican offering such an first-rate idea! Modesty, perhaps?
Is there a difference between a national ID, and nationally standardized rules for getting a state ID?
Just as a datapoint, as a Republican who supports voter ID laws and* doesn’t want to actually disenfranchise anyone who’s actually entitled to vote, I’d strongly support some sort of free (means-tested or not) federally issued voter ID as long as there were reasonable proof required for it to be issued. The sorts of tests the AZ laws requires are good, for instance.
*believe it or don’t
Sorry to nitpick, Fenris, its a small but nonetheless important point: this need not be a matter of “disenfranchise”. A poll tax doesn’t actually “disenfranchise”, it just make it more difficult if you don’t have money. Similarly with these efforts, its only a matter of making it more difficult.
The problem is making it selectively more difficult, for the people who historically have tended to vote for Dems. Smear all the lipstick in the world, that’s a pig. And it ought to be repugnant to any right thinking American. Or left thinking. Both, actually.
Now, if it were my call, and Heaven knows it never will be, I wouldn’t entangle this with any other ID issue. The card may not necessarily contain any more information beyond that the guy in this picture is legal and registered to vote. Crank it up to a national level and it will it get slow-walked until my grandchildren get Medicare.
I’ve had a Cali cell number in Arizona. An Arizona number in Colorado and right now I have a Southern Colorado number (719) in Northern CO. I understand your point that a bill is a bill and it shouldn’t matter but I can see how the idea that a landline is tied to a location and a cell phone isn’t (and therefore not proof of residence) makes sense to the bureaucrats that just relized they can send pictures over the new-fangled facimile machine right next to the Telex.
Same issues as now with state IDs. Nothing new.
I live in England (tri-citizenship, Irish, UK and US). I’m not sure which direction you’re going with this. That people are complaining that they need IDs or that legislation is passed that requires the use of an ID. I was actually in support of national identity cards: it could consolidate a lot of information (I currently carry my passport around in order to buy alcohol), but I appreciate the arguments that it impinges liberty. I personally don’t care about illegal immigration. I’ve met plenty of native members of this country with less grasp of the language than other immigrants I’ve encountered. We no longer exile other criminals: why should we exile people just because they weren’t born here?
I don’t remember the process required to register to vote, but the council sends voting cards to each household, which have to be presented at the voting booth. No ID is required at the booth. I don’t know how many complaints of fraud have been registered, though I do know closing voting booths early was a problem last election.