# Fellow progressives: Aren't you missing the point with your opposition to voter ID? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2013, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624 "2013-08-19T09:03:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/61 "2013-08-19T17:38:37Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Uh, because you _don’t_ seem to get it, no matter how much I try to spell it out. Just less than three hours ago, I attempted to dispel your same misapprehension. > > So I will even try to spell it out a little more: let’s work on providing education, housing, medical care, and (for the non-disabled, non-elderly) living wage jobs to these people. And being able to vote: let’s work on disadvantaged people being able to vote. That’s important too. This is the point you seem to be missing. You’re saying progressives should be working on helping disadvantaged people rather than wasting their time fighting voter ID laws. But progressives feel (correctly in my opinion) that fighting voter ID laws is part of the package of helping disadvantaged people. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/62 "2013-08-19T17:58:48Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Job programs, housing programs, education and training, more social workers dispatched to these areas, more robust medical services for these folks. How’s that for a start? It’s dependent on Dem victory, for a start. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/63 "2013-08-19T17:59:40Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > ETA: **Bob** , I’d love to see you tell Jimmy Carter he’s “misinformed”. (Presumably you don’t believe he’s a Republican.) Did you actually read Carter’s report? What Carter said was that he supports voter ID laws as long as they have safeguards against disenfranchisement. He does not endorse the current voter ID programs. He says they disenfranchise legitimate voters. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/64 "2013-08-19T17:59:48Z")
**Once again:** From [_The Voting Wars,_](http://www.amazon.com/The-Voting-Wars-Election-Meltdown/dp/0300198248/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1375067109&sr=8-1&keywords=the+voting+wars) by election lawyer Richard Hasen: > [@](#): > > If I wanted to steal an election using voter impersonation fraud, I’d have to recruit a bunch of people to vote at the polling place using fake names. But they might not follow my directions. They might go into the polling place and not vote, they might vote under their own names, or they might vote for someone other than the candidate I paid them to vote for. This is the problem with any elections crime scheme based on voters using a secret ballot in a polling place. > > But impersonation fraud represents an even greater hurdle. There are two ways to impersonate. One way would be to have people claim to be somebody else listed on the rolls. This is obviously problematic: If I send you in and direct you to claim to be Thor Hearne, who I know is registered to vote in that precinct, but Thor has already showed up to vote, you would be immediately subject to arrest. > > You might be arrested even if Thor has not yet voted. In many precincts, poll workers are local individuals. One of them could well know him. “You’re not Thor” could also land you in jail. Moreover, many places do a signature match. Your signature would not match Thor’s. > > The other way of doing impersonation fraud would be for me to get you to fill out a registration card with a false name and address. The voter registration card would be turned into election officials, who will check the name and address against existing records. These forms have to be turned in weeks before the election. I’d then need to recruit people to go to the polling place on Election Day and falsely claim to be a person on the list. And federal law already provides that first-time voters must supply a driver’s license or Social Security number if they register first to vote by mail – or provide identification to election officials when they vote for the first time. > > Either gambit requires assembling enough coconspirators to affect the outcome of the election. Could I do it, even in a very small election, without getting caught? We don’t have a single recent example of anyone even attempting it. Why try such a risky scheme when absentee ballots are so much safer and more reliable? [N.B.: Hasen is not talking about fraudulent absentee ballots but bought absentee ballots; as he notes elsewhere in the book, absentee voting is the one area where vote-buying still happens sometimes, because, unlike voting a secret ballot on e-day, it leaves a paper trail which the buyer can check if he has the right inside connections, or simply check in person by watching the voter fill out the ballot.] > > The chance that impersonation fraud can effect a presidential, statewide, or even large city or county election is miniscule. Missouri had about four million registered voters in the 2000s. The idea that impersonation fraud could be done on a large-enough scale to affect the outcome of any major race, without detection by government officials, is ludicrous. Now, if you want a **real** solution to America’s **real** problems with election administration (those problems being 1) the system is hyperfederalized, every county doing things its own way, and 2) the system is partisan, election officials being elected officials rather than civil servants), Hasen provides it: > [@](#): > > We need nonpartisan, professional election administration at the federal, state and local levels, with more power in the hands of the federal government than state government and power power in the hands of the states than the localities. Neutral election officials, whose allegiance is not to a political party or candidate but to a fair election system, should be the norm. > > \ > > “Let a thousand flowers bloom” should not be the model for how we run our elections. We should follow the path of other mature democracies. A nonpartisan election czar or panel of three should run our national elections, with political insulation and a long term of service. The czar should impose uniformity, competence, and discipline on the election process. > > If used on a national scale, the president would make the nomination subject to a two-thirds or three-fourths confirmation vote by both houses of Congress. The large supermajority requirement would ensure that the person picked is a consensus candidate who cannot be easily manipulated by political forces. The election czar (or committee) should have the power to impose uniform standards on federal elections. Ideally, a voter should be able to walk into any polling place, anywhere in the country, and see the same voting equipment and the same ballot format. Election boards with balanced representation from both parties should have the power to monitor operations conducted by the nonpartisan official, with ample protection for either party to call for grand jury investigations if there are allegations of partisanship or incompetence. > > \ > > There should be uniform standards for how to deal with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Election laws should be updated so that the rules are clear and established in advance. States should conduct periodic election law audits to ensure that laws are up to date, clear, and match current voting technology. Uniformity not only minimizes the grounds for a potential postelection contest but benefits all voters by ensuring a fair process. > > The registration rolls should be uniform as well. The federal government should be in the business of registering all voters, paying all costs associated with registration and voter verification. Registration should begin when someone graduates from high school (or drops out), and voter registration should follow citizens wherever they go with a unique voter identification number (which would differ from a Social Security number). The government should provide a voter identification card to each voter, but voters lacking identification would have the choice of using a thumprint or other means too verify their identity. > > Votging machine hardware and software should have government approval. The source code and hardware should undergo rigtorous independent testing and full disclosure to government officials before rollout and implementation. Manufacturers should not be able to frustrate efforts to improve security by claiming that the source code is proprietary. > > Forget everything you just read. None of it is going to happen. Despite the Florida debacle, states have not moved toward greater non-partisan election administration. Florida did get rid of its partisan elected secretary of state. But now the position is appointed by the governor, without the supermajority confirmation requirement that would keep the office apolitical. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see much benefit in giving up the chance to have one of their own as the state’s chief election officer. > > More generally, the Voting Wars have shown the parties the virtue of manipulating election rules for their advantage. The parties have a vested interest in keeping some partisan control. And local election officials fight for power against state officials, while both fight against federal control. There’s no strong lobby for change. The window for change following 2000 closed quickly with the half-measure of the Help America Vote Act. > > Nor is there support for mandatory, government-paid national voter registration with a voter identification – much less with biometric information like a fingerprint. When I first proposed such a system, in 2005, I managed the nearly impossible feat of uniting the two political parties around an idea. Unfortunately, they were united in opposition. Republicans oppose federal control, oppose another government program, and oppose government control on principle. Democrats oppose voter identification requirements, even if the government pays for it and goes out and registers voters, even though a large majority of the public supports such identification. Civil libertarians don’t like the government having your thumbprint. Barring a much worse meltdown than 2000, nationalizing our elections won’t happen in our lifetime. From the same book: > [@](#): > > What really motivates the Fraudulent Fraud Squad? _[American Spectator_ journalist Matthew] Vadum, one of the squad’s newest members, inadvertently revealed what underlay his attack on ACORN and related groups. Registering the poor to vote, he contended, is “un-American,” like “giving burglary tools to criminals.” It is profoundly anti-social and un-American to empower nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country – which is exactly why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote. > > In other words, we should once again make wealth a condition of voting. Apparently this is no longer the kind of odious idea one should keep to oneself. Hasen’s not making that up, either. [Vadum’s article.](http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html) ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/65 "2013-08-19T18:05:53Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I say, “Jesus fucking Christ, this is the 21st century and we are the richest nation on earth–how about we insist on 100% goddamned literacy in this country just to start off with?!?” Here’s the thing; education isn’t a one-way thing; the people being educated have to put forth some effort in order to learn. I’m not saying that a lot of the schools in the country are below-par, but it’s staggering to a lot of people (the majority, I’ll wager) that people can be illiterate in the US in this day and age without being either mentally disabled in some fashion. Even the worst schools can teach the basics of reading and writing; for God’s sake, it’s a skill that plenty of people learn before they’re even in school. Pointing at illiteracy as a governmental failure is simplistic at best, and misleading at worst. And it’s equally hard for many of us to conceive of people so cut off from mainstream life that they don’t have some kind of photo ID that they can use. I agree that there’s something fundamentally wrong about the level of disconnection that results in no photo ID and/or being illiterate. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s a failure of government or necessarily an issue to be solved by one side alone. You can’t force people to value those things, and if voting isn’t enough of an incentive to get a photo ID or learn to read, then I don’t know what is. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/66 "2013-08-19T18:10:16Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I’m not saying that a lot of the schools in the country are below-par . . . That is the truth whether you’re saying it or not. > [@bump](#): > > . . . but it’s staggering to a lot of people (the majority, I’ll wager) that people can be illiterate in the US in this day and age without being either mentally disabled in some fashion. . . . or? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/67 "2013-08-19T18:32:08Z")
> [@bump](#): > > I agree that there’s something fundamentally wrong about the level of disconnection that results in no photo ID and/or being illiterate. I don’t necessarily agree that it’s a failure of government or necessarily an issue to be solved by one side alone. You can’t force people to value those things, and if voting isn’t enough of an incentive to get a photo ID or learn to read, then I don’t know what is. Voter turn out in the US is around 60% of the eligible population. Literacy in the US is about 99% (for those over the age of 15). How many of those not casting a vote are disenfranchised and/or without any form of ID? My guess is that it’s a very small fraction of 40%. I ask because illiteracy certainly is not a factor. So the problem we are trying to solve with voter id’s is not the problem we should be thinking about. We should be thinking about how to get more of the 40% involved in elections. Or maybe not. Maybe having 40% of the population completely apathetic about who’s in charge means that the US as a whole is less likely to become so polarized politically that it leads to some sort of violent civil conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/68 "2013-08-19T19:12:26Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Why Voter ID though? > > Why not issue everyone a national ID card, replacing all other forms of ID? > No state ID, no SNAP card. It all happens on your National ID. Raving paranoia, and because if everyone had the card no one would be interested in it since the point of voter ID laws is exclusion. It would be ignored in favor of some ID that everyone didn’t have. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Voter ID laws are pretty widely popular, and have majority support of Republicans, Independents and Democrats. Of course; the majority of Americans are bigots, and see it as a way of re-introducing Jim Crow, which it is. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > Job programs, housing programs, education and training, more social workers dispatched to these areas, more robust medical services for these folks. How’s that for a start? None of which will happen for people who are systematically disenfranchised by voter ID and therefore have no political power. They are more likely to receive beatings from police officers guarding the polling places from them to ensure than anyone with too dark a skin tone doesn’t vote, than they are to receive aid from the government. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > It seems to me like your OP was mis-stated. Instead, you should have said something like > > > > “Voter ID laws are being passed whether you like it or not, and our (progressives) opposition to them will cost us votes and, in the long run, harm our cause. We should drop our opposition, and instead focus on making sure everyone has a photo ID that can be used for elections.” > > > > Isn’t that really your point? > > Is it “really” my point? Well, technically, I think not. I was inspired to start this thread by the NPR story, and the OP reflects my specific thoughts after hearing that story. However, the encapsulation you stated in quotes _is_ something that I do also believe, have stated in the usual threads, and have actually believed much longer than just the relatively short time since I listened to the NPR story and formulated the line of argument used to create this thread. Having the people who support you forbidden to vote will cost you far more votes. > [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > What’s going to be required is that we - the progressives of the USA - again rise to the occasion and make sure that our voters get their IDs and get to the polls and vote. That can’t be done, since if we can get them those IDs then the laws will be changed so they don’t count, or outright ignored by people finding imaginary “errors” in them. Exclusion is the point; no ID they show up with will be good enough. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > I scanned the thread but I’m not sure if this was addressed - > > How many people without currently acceptable id’s are there compared to the number of people simply not the least bit interested in voting (id or no)? Ten of millions, since “without currently acceptable id” is just code for “is non-white or votes Democrat”. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/69 "2013-08-19T19:54:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Raving paranoia, and because if everyone had the card no one would be interested in it since the point of voter ID laws is exclusion. It would be ignored in favor of some ID that everyone didn’t have. > > Of course; the majority of Americans are bigots, and see it as a way of re-introducing Jim Crow, which it is. > > None of which will happen for people who are systematically disenfranchised by voter ID and therefore have no political power. They are more likely to receive beatings from police officers guarding the polling places from them to ensure than anyone with too dark a skin tone doesn’t vote, than they are to receive aid from the government. > Having the people who support you forbidden to vote will cost you far more votes. > That can’t be done, since if we can get them those IDs then the laws will be changed so they don’t count, or outright ignored by people finding imaginary “errors” in them. Exclusion is the point; no ID they show up with will be good enough. I don’t doubt that a large proportion of the population remains racist or at least look the other way when racism is taking place, but I don’t know if it would be possible for the kind of picture you’re painting to take place with current day national media access to everyone with a cell phone. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Ten of millions, since “without currently acceptable id” is just code for “is non-white or votes Democrat”. That sounds like an awfully large number to accept on pure assertion without supporting evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/70 "2013-08-19T19:59:31Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I ask because illiteracy certainly is not a factor. So the problem we are trying to solve with voter id’s is not the problem we should be thinking about. Must be nice to have a car and/or have easy access to IDs, eh? Remember the 60% figure is among registered voters. There are plenty of citizens who are eligible to vote but aren’t registered. For obvious reasons, they skew poor and minority. In Texas alone, literally millions of otherwise eligible citizens are negatively affected by voter ID laws. Before the law was enacted, there were nearly 2 million registered voters without a photo ID. And people who have not yet registered but could? They just add to that figure. So, why doesn’t Texas just give them a “free” ID card? They do. But you have to show up at a DPS station to get one (DPS is where you get driver’s licenses, ID cards, etc) along with some serious documentation. Well, what’s the problem with asking people to show up at a DPS? It’s the poor (who are predominately minorities and often non-English speaking) who have the hardest time getting to a DPS station. Many Texas counties don’t even have one, so it’s a several hours drive to get to one. Even in highly populated areas, like Houston, getting to one can often be a 2 hour one-way bus ride (remember, they’re poor = no car), which means taking time off work. And once you’re there, you’re in line for another couple hours. Even with a car, I budget a minimum of half a working day if I need to deal with the DPS. Basically, in Texas, the voter ID law is an additional impediment to voting, especially so for poor, often minority would-be voters. If the idea is to encourage voter turnout, making it harder just to **register** to vote is an asinine idea. And making nearly 2 million registered voters jump through more hoops to exercise the franchise they already earned? That’s just un-American. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/71 "2013-08-19T20:10:35Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Must be nice to have a car and/or have easy access to IDs, eh? > > Remember the 60% figure is among registered voters. There are plenty of citizens who are eligible to vote but aren’t registered. For obvious reasons, they skew poor and minority. > > In Texas alone, literally millions of otherwise eligible citizens are negatively affected by voter ID laws. > > So, why doesn’t Texas just give them a “free” ID card? They do. But you have to show up at a DPS station to get one (DPS is where you get driver’s licenses, ID cards, etc) along with some serious documentation. > > Well, what’s the problem with asking people to show up at a DPS? It’s the poor (who are predominately minorities and often non-English speaking) who have the hardest time getting to a DPS station. Many Texas counties don’t even have one, so it’s a several hours drive to get to one. Even in highly populated areas, like Houston, getting to one can often be a 2 hour one-way bus ride (remember, they’re poor = no car), which means taking time off work. And once you’re there, you’re in line for another couple hours. Even with a car, I budget a minimum of half a working day if I need to deal with the DPS. > > Basically, in Texas, the voter ID law is an additional impediment to voting, especially so for poor, often minority would-be voters. If the idea is to encourage voter turnout, making it harder just to **register** to vote is an asinine idea. If you want to vote bad enough, you’ll make it happen. Everyone else has to take time off work to get their DL or get it renewed every so often, so what’s so special about poor people in that regard? DPS offices are NOT that far apart; if places like Caldwell AND Bryan, or Cleburne AND Hamilton have them (both sets of cities roughly 20 miles apart), they’re making a pretty concerted effort to be convenient. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/72 "2013-08-19T20:11:34Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Well, what’s the problem with asking people to show up at a DPS? It’s the poor (who are predominately minorities and often non-English speaking) who have the hardest time getting to a DPS station. Many Texas counties don’t even have one, so it’s a several hours drive to get to one. Even in highly populated areas, like Houston, getting to one can often be a 2 hour one-way bus ride (remember, they’re poor = no car), which means taking time off work. And once you’re there, you’re in line for another couple hours. Even with a car, I budget a minimum of half a working day if I need to deal with the DPS. > > Basically, in Texas, the voter ID law is an additional impediment to voting, especially so for poor, often minority would-be voters. If the idea is to encourage voter turnout, making it harder just to **register** to vote is an asinine idea. And making nearly 2 million registered voters jump through more hoops to exercise the franchise they already earned? That’s just un-American. According to [USA.gov](http://USA.gov), you can [register by mail](http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml) in virtually every state, including Texas… ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/73 "2013-08-19T20:18:25Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > That sounds like an awfully large number to accept on pure assertion without supporting evidence. What, are you trying to claim that there aren’t tens of millions of non-whites & Democrats in the country? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/74 "2013-08-19T20:24:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > What, are you trying to claim that there aren’t tens of millions of non-whites & Democrats in the country? You’d like that wouldn’t you?! 😉 No, I’m asking if all those tens of millions of non-white & democrats are, in fact, disenfranchised voters without acceptable id’s and a burning desire to cast a vote. If so, great - show me. And I’ll not consider this day to be an almost complete waste. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/75 "2013-08-19T20:27:02Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Everyone else has to take time off work to get their DL or get it renewed every so often, so what’s so special about poor people in that regard? There are very justifiable reasons for requiring drivers to get photo driver’s licences. There are also very justifiable reasons for requiring Photo ID for various situations, like buying age restricted goods. The reasoning behind Voter ID is specious at best, and disgustingly fraudulent at worst. They’re not trying to ensure that drivers are safely trained, or that teens can’t buy alcohol/cigarettes, they’re trying to make it inconvenient for marginalized, poor folk to participate in an election. They force these people to get an ID they don’t need, to guard against fraud that doesn’t happen, with the full expectation that some of those folks won’t jump through that last hoop to participate. Not only do they expect it, it’s the reason the law exists in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/76 "2013-08-19T20:47:05Z")
> [@bump](#): > > DPS offices are NOT that far apart; if places like Caldwell AND Bryan, or Cleburne AND Hamilton have them (both sets of cities roughly 20 miles apart), they’re making a pretty concerted effort to be convenient. They’re trying but the locations aren’t conducive to the poorer parts of cities. Again, Houston. If you live in one of the poorer parts of South Houston, it really is a 2 hour bus ride to get to one. Or the need to bum a ride from someone with a car. I’ll ignore West Texas. DPS offices are sparse out there, but there aren’t that many people out there, either. Me? They opened up one of their DPS mega offices within 15 minutes drive of my house. It’s nice. Of course, Fort Bend county doesn’t have public transit, either. Good thing I have a car and am not poor. If the DPS were also open on Saturdays, most of my objections would go away. Alas, you have to go during working hours Monday through Friday. So, registering to vote can literally be choosing to not go to work. Not everybody has a salaried job or flexible hours. > [@QuickSilver](#): > > According to [USA.gov](http://USA.gov), you can [register by mail](http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Register.shtml) in virtually every state, including Texas… Great. Completely misses the point. Even if you register to vote by mail in Texas, you still need an ID to actually vote. And the valid photo IDs for voting can only be obtained by going to a DPS office (see above for logistical issues if you don’t have a car). What’s the point in registering if you can’t vote when you actually get to the polling location? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/77 "2013-08-19T20:47:46Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > You’d like that wouldn’t you?! 😉 > > No, I’m asking if all those tens of millions of non-white & democrats are, in fact, disenfranchised voters without acceptable id’s and a burning desire to cast a vote. You fail to see my point; it’s them being non-white and Democrat that _means_ their IDs will be unacceptable, whatever IDs they have or don’t have. The point of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise them whether they are enfranchised _now_ or not. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/78 "2013-08-19T21:01:06Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#): > > Great. Completely misses the point. > > Even if you register to vote by mail in Texas, you still need an ID to actually vote. And the valid photo IDs for voting can only be obtained by going to a DPS office (see above for logistical issues if you don’t have a car). What’s the point in registering if you can’t vote when you actually get to the polling location? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You fail to see my point; it’s them being non-white and Democrat that _means_ their IDs will be unacceptable, whatever IDs they have or don’t have. The point of voter ID laws is to disenfranchise them whether they are enfranchised _now_ or not. I’m not suggesting that voter id’s are the solution. As far as I’m concerned they won’t solve the issue any better than the current valid id’s recognized for most voters. But I’m hearing you both say that there are voters being rejected for their skin color and likelyhood to vote for Democrats. I have little doubt that this does go on. But the number I hear is somewhere between “There are some reports of voters being turned away” and “Tens of Millions”. I’m asking if there is a reliable statistic and if that number is closer to the former or the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/79 "2013-08-19T21:19:31Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I’m not suggesting that voter id’s are the solution. As far as I’m concerned they won’t solve the issue any better than the current valid id’s recognized for most voters. Solution to what? What issue? > [@](#): > > But the number I hear is somewhere between “There are some reports of voters being turned away” and “Tens of Millions”. I’m asking if there is a reliable statistic and if that number is closer to the former or the latter. What kind of side effects are you willing to accept from a drug that cures a disease you don’t have? Does it matter if it’s just a headache or bloating instead of crippling liver damage and impotence? The reliable statistic we NEED is the one that justifies the law in the first place, the one that tells us how many fraudulent votes occur via Voter Impersonation. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624/80 "2013-08-19T21:28:06Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > I have little doubt that this does go on. But the number I hear is somewhere between “There are some reports of voters being turned away” and “Tens of Millions”. Among voters already registered, the figure in Texas alone was [1.9 million](http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20120710-texas-voter-id-law-burdens-minorities-hispanic-lawmakers-testify-in-federal-court.ece) without valid IDs. That was a couple years ago. Mostly poor or old and many Hispanic. It is worth nothing that around 1/3 of these were over 65. They often have time but not the means to get the IDs. Those are DoJ figures, by the way. The number of unregistered yet eligible voters in Texas? Around 5 million, of which about [2 million](http://www.texastribune.org/2012/06/13/state-watches-voter-id-report-highlights-apathy/) are Hispanic. Hispanics in Texas aren’t the most affluent ethnicity. So, yes, the Voter ID law disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. That was the point of the original DoJ lawsuit. Are they being turned away? Not directly. But putting up multiple roadblocks to their ability to register or vote is like a poll tax or literacy test. A Voter ID law skirts the purpose of banning those practices, which is to reduce effective disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor. Nobody is directly turned away but it is made harder for them to even get to the polling stations. Why make it harder for people to vote when voter fraud (the key issue) isn’t even a problem? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-progressives-arent-you-missing-the-point-with-your-opposition-to-voter-id/666624.md?page=5)