How do voter ID laws suppress minority votes?

[elucidator]

North Carolina Republicans sign voting restrictions into law, betray fear

By way of our good friends at Daily Kos, news of the signing of the North Carolina addition to this sewage soup. The new law has it all: the voter id, the restrictions on Sunday voting, the restrictions on voting registration, ending same-day registration.

And the Gov signs, but to hear him tell it, it was all about voter id and nothing else:

“North Carolinians overwhelmingly support a common sense law that requires voters to present photo identification in order to cast a ballot,” McCrory said in a statement. “I am proud to sign this legislation into law. Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote."

That’s the whole statement. Not one word, not one! about any of the other provisions of this turd sundae.

I don’t want to take up too much space here, no doubt somebody wants to get in here and tell us some more about liberal hypocrisy.

[John_DiFool]

@elucidator

Was he the last one? Perhaps you will rise to the challenge and fill those shoes. I might not be the first to applaud, but I’ll damn sure be the loudest! Texan, you know. We tend to be a bit boisterous.

I know I at least won’t be the last caught holding my breath.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

And every time you point this out, I disagree, pointing out that as a matter of law, it’s perfectly reasonable to ask for ID, and if anyone fails to vote because they don’t want to get ID, that’s their problem, not the state’s concern.

And we keep telling you there’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s right. It’s disturbing how you seem unable to understand that.

As I’ve said, I predict that most voter ID laws will be struck down by the courts within twenty years. At that point, you’ll presumably awaken to the fact that they’re wrong. It’s just that the rest of us can see it’s wrong now and we don’t like having to put up with it while it slowly works it way through the legal process.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

And we keep telling you there’s a difference between what’s legal and what’s right. It’s disturbing how you seem unable to understand that.

I get it. I just don’t agree that you and your brethren are any particularly useful authority on what’s right.

The reason for arguing from the law is that it provides finality. You can assert this is wrong; i assert it’s right – where does that leave us?

We have a system in this country of allowing competing views to be heard in the marketplace of ideas, and ultimately enacting into law the will of the people, as measured by their elected representatives. In this case, by almost any measure, you lose: the legislatures voted it in; the courts approve; polls show a strong majority of the public approves as well. Against that, you announce that you, and your SDMB coterie, have determined it’s wrong.

Well, guess what? Me, and the 72% of Americans that favor strong Voter ID, and all the legislatures that have voted for it, and all the judges that have approved it, disagree. And since we get to actually enact the law and you get to sputter impotently on a message board, that’s the end of it.

As I’ve said, I predict that most voter ID laws will be struck down by the courts within twenty years. At that point, you’ll presumably awaken to the fact that they’re wrong. It’s just that the rest of us can see it’s wrong now and we don’t like having to put up with it while it slowly works it way through the legal process.

Nonsense. Twenty years from now will see a national ID card system and STRONG voter identification nationwide. But you’ll approve, because the system will be as free as possible and as easy as possible.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

North Carolina Republicans sign voting restrictions into law, betray fear

By way of our good friends at Daily Kos, news of the signing of the North Carolina addition to this sewage soup. The new law has it all: the voter id, the restrictions on Sunday voting, the restrictions on voting registration, ending same-day registration.

And the Gov signs, but to hear him tell it, it was all about voter id and nothing else:

That’s the whole statement. Not one word, not one! about any of the other provisions of this turd sundae.

I don’t want to take up too much space here, no doubt somebody wants to get in here and tell us some more about liberal hypocrisy.

Your point is a good one. This is conservative disingenuousness. He’s adopted a whole range of measures and highlights only the most uncontroversial. I agree that’s not honest.

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

The reason for arguing from the law is that it provides finality. You can assert this is wrong; i assert it’s right – where does that leave us?

Not with “finality,” just because legislatures and courts have decided.

@Bricker

We have a system in this country of allowing competing views to be heard in the marketplace of ideas, and ultimately enacting into law the will of the people, as measured by their elected representatives. In this case, by almost any measure, you lose: the legislatures voted it in; the courts approve; polls show a strong majority of the public approves as well.

But, that process never ends. As I said in this thread:

@BrainGlutton

Yes, and this kind of Intertubes-wrangle, like discussions in bars and coffeehouses and at dinner-tables and at “Town Hall” meetings, is all part of that political process, as it shapes the parameters of the debate and positions the boundaries of the Overton Window and affects how everything plays out at the polls on e-day. There is a process, and we are doing it now.

So . . . what is your point, here?

What is your point, here?

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Bricker

Twenty years from now will see a national ID card system and STRONG voter identification nationwide. But you’ll approve, because the system will be as free as possible and as easy as possible.

I’m a progressive, and I object to this more as a taxpayer than as a civil libertarian.

Really, national ID would make voter suppression harder (thumbprints are even better, because I don’t have to fill out a form to get a thumb).

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Your point is a good one. This is conservative disingenuousness. He’s adopted a whole range of measures and highlights only the most uncontroversial. I agree that’s not honest.

Nope. You know the drill: renounce, denounce and condemn or it ain’t shit.

[Bryan_Ekers]

What Republican politicians want and what they say they want are often separated by a 500-foot restraining order.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

I get it. I just don’t agree that you and your brethren are any particularly useful authority on what’s right.

Jim Crow? That was wrong.

Some issues really are that easy. And this is one of them.

@Bricker

The reason for arguing from the law is that it provides finality. You can assert this is wrong; i assert it’s right – where does that leave us?

The law is never finished. You should know that. New laws are enacted and new court decisions are issued every year.

And arguing that a law should be a law because it’s a law is a pretty bad argument. Are you arguing that the states that don’t currently have voter ID laws shouldn’t enact them? The current spate of voter ID laws began in 2002. Are you on record back then as arguing that we shouldn’t enact voter ID laws because we didn’t have them already and the law should be final?

Your argument seems to be that the law should be open to change until it reaches the point you like and then it should be set in stone and never changed again.

[Drum_God]

@Bricker

Well, guess what? Me, and the 72% of Americans that favor strong Voter ID, and all the legislatures that have voted for it, and all the judges that have approved it, disagree. And since we get to actually enact the law and you get to sputter impotently on a message board, that’s the end of it.

Ah, I see the problem here. It is entirely possible for you and 72% of Americans to be wrong about an issue. The majority does not have the right to run roughshod over the minority.

The OP asked a simple question: How is voter ID used to suppress minority votes? I posted a direct answer. Is there a part of my answer (post #2) that appears to be inaccurate? If one were wishing to suppress votes (and Lord knows the GOP would not wish that in a million years!), would voter ID be an effective means of doing so?

[BrainGlutton]

@Little_Nemo

The law is never finished. You should know that. New laws are enacted and new court decisions are issued every year.

One is sometimes actually, if perhaps unfairly, tempted to suspect Bricker of confusing the ever-changing statutory and common law with the eternal and unchangeable and nonexistent natural law, as SovCits do, and as no lawyer should.

[Lumpy]

@BrainGlutton

One is sometimes actually, if perhaps unfairly, tempted to suspect Bricker of confusing the ever-changing statutory and common law with the eternal and unchangeable and nonexistent natural law, as SovCits do, and as no lawyer should.

Oh, Sovereign Citizens. For a moment I thought that meant Soviet Citizens, which was rather confusing.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Jim Crow? That was wrong.

Agreed.

Some issues really are that easy. And this is one of them.

If “this” is Voter ID, then no, I disagree.

The law is never finished. You should know that. New laws are enacted and new court decisions are issued every year.

True.

But when laws enjoy broad popular support, and have Supreme Court imprimatur, those aren’t usually the laws that fall victim to change. But, hey, maybe the Great Pumpkin will come this year for you.

And arguing that a law should be a law because it’s a law is a pretty bad argument. Are you arguing that the states that don’t currently have voter ID laws shouldn’t enact them? The current spate of voter ID laws began in 2002. Are you on record back then as arguing that we shouldn’t enact voter ID laws because we didn’t have them already and the law should be final?

Your argument seems to be that the law should be open to change until it reaches the point you like and then it should be set in stone and never changed again.

Not at all. I’m saying this should be a law because it makes sense and enjoys broad popular support and has passed constitutional muster and has been voted in by legislatures and signed by governors. All those factors, together, inform my opinion.

[Bricker]

@Drum_God

Ah, I see the problem here. It is entirely possible for you and 72% of Americans to be wrong about an issue. The majority does not have the right to run roughshod over the minority.

Who determines the extent of this lack of “right?”

[BrainGlutton]

@Bricker

Who determines the extent of this lack of “right?”

Oh, very well, I’ll do it. Now quit pestering me, I’m up to my ass in alligators.

[Little_Nemo]

@Bricker

If “this” is Voter ID, then no, I disagree.

Then you’re wrong. I didn’t pick Jim Crow as a random example. Voter ID laws are Jim Crow, just dressed up in a nice suit and tie. And once they go into broad effect and people see that effect, the backlash will kick in and they’ll end up like Jim Crow.

@Bricker

But when laws enjoy broad popular support, and have Supreme Court imprimatur, those aren’t usually the laws that fall victim to change. But, hey, maybe the Great Pumpkin will come this year for you.

Not at all. I’m saying this should be a law because it makes sense and enjoys broad popular support and has passed constitutional muster and has been voted in by legislatures and signed by governors. All those factors, together, inform my opinion.

These laws are still new. All most people know about them so far is the bullshit they’ve been fed by conservatives. When they go into broad effect and people see the reality of what these laws are doing, public opinion will change against them.

[Bricker]

@Little_Nemo

Then you’re wrong. I didn’t pick Jim Crow as a random example. Voter ID laws are Jim Crow, just dressed up in a nice suit and tie. And once they go into broad effect and people see that effect, the backlash will kick in and they’ll end up like Jim Crow.

No way. You’re wrong. You’re the Mayor, in fact, of Wrongville, and people far and wide read about your wrongness and shake their heads, amazed at how much wong can be crammed into a single person’s head.

[elucidator]

Yeah, you people keep wandering off topic. OK, so the Republicans in these states are knee deep in political slime, putting forth repulsive schemes to corrupt and degrade American politics in order to ensure themselves of power they do not deserve and cannot legitimately keep.

So, what is that, a big deal, or something?

Fact remains, voter id laws are legal, Constitutional and popular. The fact that they are being used as a cover for a repulsive, corrupt and brazen grasp for power is not the issue here, the issue here is that voter id is legal and Constitutional. And popular! Very, very popular!

And hasn’t friend Bricker already offered a firm “tsk-tsk!” to Republicans for being coy and disingenuous? OK, so maybe those other laws stink like week old road kill, but so what? Those aren’t voter ID laws, which are legal and Constitutional. And popular! Did I forget to mention popular? Very popular!

And just think how the voter confidence of black voters is being enhanced! Now, they need not worry about ACORN and CASA corrupting their vote! OK, its probably a bit tiresome and depressing to know that the party in power is warping the laws to make it tougher for you to vote, but that is a small price to make for white Republican voter confidence! They should be proud to make such a sacrifice for a party that apparently hates their collective guts!

They are probably gathering right now to express their happy enthusiasm for such voter confidence! With torches, because it gets dark early, and pitchforks, in case the Governor’s rose bushes need tending!

Sure, those other laws are so rotten and corrupt that no decent American would wipe his ass with them. But they aren’t the point! The point is voter id laws, which are legal and Constitutional! And popular! Did I forget popular again! Well, they are! Popular!

[tomndebb]

@elucidator

And if you’re dumb enough to buy that, you shouldn’t buy shoes with laces, they will only confuse you.

If this was an attempt to preclude discussion by pre-emptively declaring the opposition stupid, then you posted it in the wrong forum.

Stop it.

===

EVERYONE, tone down the personal rhetoric. NOW.

[ /Moderating ]