How much are you willing to bet on that? A hundred dollars? A thousand?
Where do you intend to get statistics from in order to determine whether you won or lost the bet?
But none of those suggestions have anything to do with the impact closing the satellite offices will have, which is the topic of this thread. Since this is GD, I’ll also point out that your assessment of this situation based on your perspective on “many” Southern GOP politicians is a logical fallacy, FWIW.
Once again, liberals insult African-Americans by suggesting that it’s too far beyond their scope to go to a government office and provide a birth certificate to get a photo ID.
It’s the same shit the rest of us have to do…
As an aside: is this Hillary playing demographic warfare to get minority votes? Say it ain’t so, Shirley…
The governor says it as well. If he’s lying about something objectively factual, that’s a pretty stupidly brazen thing to do with something so easily confirmed.
Conservatives always seem to have such difficulty with the idea of historical change. DEMOCRATS FOUNDED THE KKK! REPUBLICANS DESTROYED SLAVERY! And everything that happened between 1860 and the late 20th Century is irrelevant, apparently.
If that were the case, then this would actually increase fairness - not all areas had a satellite office.
My understanding is this will make it harder for many people, including many black Alabamans, to get voter IDs. Harder, but not impossible. But “harder” can be enough to make it less likely for some of them to get it done – some will be too busy, some will be too exhausted, some will be too distracted, some will be too lazy, etc. Historically, in this region, it’s very reasonable to suspect (and I’m not certain) that any actions that make it harder for some black people to vote are at least partially motivated by the desire that they be less likely to vote.
The budgeting process is not an exact science that can be objectively analyzed. Different people are going to value different cuts differently, and I think it’s quite easy to cut some particular program and make it look like a necessary thing to do.
I’d prefer an objective analysis of this situation, not one from either political side. Like I said upthread, I tried to find one, but no luck so far.
Here in Baja Canada, known to many as Minnesota, the registered voter attestation I outlined above works just fine, thankyouverymuch! If there is a problem with voter fraud, nobody has found it yet.
So, yeah, the mobile van thing could work, if the mobile van is empowered to register voters along those lines. But if the mobile van is only empowered to tell you why they *can’t *register a prospective voter, I fail to see any advance.
“I’d like to register to vote, please.”
“Very well, have you photo id?”
“No. Why I’m here…”
“Here’s a list of places you can go and get one. Next!”
And just by the bye…how much money will be allocated to these mobile vans, wandering aimlessly through the wilds of Alabama? If they can’t afford to keep an office open one day a week, how many computer-equipped vans are they going to buy?
I’m sure this is for budget reasons. My understanding, though, is, and the news is reporting, for example, this article,
So there are only going to be four offices in the whole state you can go to to get a driver’s license? Forget about the voting, because, like the OP said, you can get a voter ID card at a county registrant’s office. Isn’t this going to be remarkably inconvenient for Alabamans? I mean, people only vote once every year (or more likely, once every two years, or even more likely once every four years, or even more likely, never), but people drive all the time. How are the offices going to be able to deal with all those people?
iiandyii, perhaps we’re talking past each other, but what I have been continuously pointing out is that the issues (if they are issues) associated with voter ID programs are a separate debate because they existed when the satellite offices were open as well. Same evidence required, etc. Hillary’s claim is that the closing of the satellite offices, by itself, created an intentional hardship for those who used them, predominately minority voters.
So, it may be false (or misleadingly represented), but what has been asserted is that the “typical” satellite office existed in the same building where people will now need to go–just to a different office, where staff has been consolidated. And anyone with a transportation challenge has access to mobile units. If this is as represented (if), there doesn’t appear to be any “harder” about the change.
And, again, whether the satellite offices were open or not, the applicant would have the same requirements. So, pointing out the perceived shortcomings of the voter ID program, or how it could be improved, is irrelevant as to whether or not the closings themselves create a hardship.
No, that has not been established, not clearly.
The National Review reported that the Governor said the offices are “typically” in the same building. We don’t know what constitutes “typically”.
Furthermore, we don’t know if these closed offices have signs directly people to the main offices.
Has anyone explained why there would be satellite offices in the same building?
I was responding to your post questioning whether or not the satellite offices typically existed in the same buildings. Determining how many did seems to me to be a pretty exact science.
So, even accepting your concerns, the mobile units would be as effective or ineffective as the satellite offices, given the fact that they require the same things. Right?
If this doesn’t make it harder for a single Alabaman in any way whatsoever to get voter IDs or to vote, then there’s no problem whatsoever. If it does make it harder in some way for some Alabamans, then it should be looked at very closely. It probably needs to be looked at very closely to determine which of these is true.
Yes, exactly. All the other issues, however important they might be, are irrelevant to the question raised by the OP–did the closing of the satellite offices create a hardship for minority voters? If not, I think it’s fair to call out the politicians who are making hay out of a non-issue (if it’s a non-issue).
Um, you’re mixing up voter id and driver’s licenses. You can’t get a driver’s license at the courthouse, so this is making life harder for anybody who wants a driver’s license, as I said.
No, the lines will be especially long for the affected people, because instead of coming into the DMV at random times, a busload will come in at once.
And lay off the “bias” crap. It would be bias if I mistrusted Alabama just because it’s in the south, but Alabama has its own, very specific to Alabama, centuries-long track record of racism, and there is a concerted nationwide Republican effort (including in Alabama) to make it harder for traditionally Dem voters (including blacks) to register and vote. You would have to be an idiot to ignore that, and the burden of proof is on Alabama to show that this isn’t just another brick in the wall. I’m willing to change my mind when I see how efficient and convenient the mobile units are, and how unaffected the number of driver licenses and voter registrations are in those counties. I’m sure as hell not going to take the governor’s word for it that everything will be fine.
Nobody with any intelligence can possibly believe that this won’t reduce the number of black voters in 2016. And I am very, very confident that the governor is fine with that, although that may not have been the chief motivation behind this decision.
I’m kind of disappointed in the Pubbies here. Usually, they can manage to come up with some rationale for why strip mining helps the children, or some such bullshit. The best they can do here is say, “oh, you’re being biased,” or a laughable History Minute about how Dems and Jim Crow. How come nobody’s mentioned that Lincoln was a Republican yet?
The facts here may be incomplete, but facts are not lacking.
Fact: Alabama and many of its neighboring states have a long history of black voter suppression, from “literacy tests” to bogus “voter ID laws” that provide a “solution” to a non-existent problem with the happy side effect of suppressing unwanted black votes.
Fact: Alabama passed a strict voter ID law in 2011 that took effect for the first time last year. And in last year’s general election, voter turnout was the lowest in 28 years. Gee, I wonder what demographic predominantly failed to turn out?
Fact: In that same election, unless I missed one, every single elected official was a Republican.
Fact: And now, in a perfect followon to requiring photo ID to vote, they have closed license offices in 31 counties that issue just such IDs, and the counties in which these offices are being closed are not “mostly” dominated by black populations, they all are: Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Every one.
Is this a slam-dunk legal case that would convict Alabama of voter suppression? Not yet, and it may never be possible to do so at the level of judicial evidence. What it is at this point is a highly suspicious one which the Justice Department has been called to investigate. It is, at best, extremely bad optics that the governor doesn’t seem to care about, and at best a happy coincidence of a budgetary problem with a certain political outcome desired by the Republicans who run the place. There’s a hell of a lot better chance that this is once again voter suppression than the facile claim of the OP that Hillary’s criticism was “bogus”. And your logic is remarkably similar to the rationalizations of voter ID laws that we always hear from the right.
OK. Sorry for misinterpreting your post.
No problem! 