I’m trying to debate you but you seem to be attempting to distance yourself from the things you’ve said.
You’ve invoked the principle that we should respect voter ID laws because they are popular and were enacted by legislatures. Are you now switching your argument to saying we should respect voter ID laws because you personally approve of them?
Maybe you need to take a moment and figure out what your position is and then tell the rest of us what it is you actually believe.
I want to take a moment to commend the maturity and grace of my fellow Dopers, not one of whom have expressed any curiosity about this. I had been fleetingly concerned that a court might adjudicate my gender contrary to my experience and preference, but was reassured when I remembered that no one was likely to care.
No. You should respect Voter ID laws because they are popularly supported, enacted by legislatures, signed by executives, and upheld by courts.
That has always been my argument and remains my argument now.
What is your rebuttal? Some shit other people have done?
It sounded like an actual experience. (Unlike St. Cad’s, which sounds to me to be hypothetical at best. My opinion; and I’ve invited Cad to elaborate.)
Same was true of the Jim Crow laws, and a lot of other examples.
Yes, that’s true.
And the same is true of the laws against embezzlement.
But if I am accused of embezzlement, can I defend myself by pointing out that the law is illegitimate, because even though it was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, so were Jim Crow laws?
If you think the law is illegitimate, can you strive to have it changed by addressing public officials and/or the public forums?
Even if you think the law is legitimate, but ill-advised and poor public policy, you can do that. The First Amendment guarantees it.
If you think the law is illegitimate, though, you’d be wrong.
No, that is why I will obey such laws, unless I deem some demonstration of civil disobedience rises to the cause. Because the framers of these laws have amply demonstrated their malign and corrupt intent.
They could have written these laws with safeguards, with provisos and outreach programs to ensure that no discouraging effect would be felt by voters. They did not.
Were they ignorant, no one advised them of such effects? Not hardly. They wrote these laws with such voter discouragement fully aware of what they were doing, such intent is clearly reflected in the other legalistic contortions so perverted not even you can defend them.
Noted.“Respect” has multiple meanings; in this case I mean to respect the legitimacy and validity of the law, and I do not mean there’s any necessity of respecting the law’s provisions or outcomes as wise or good.
Honestly, I don’t care. I just paid over $1000 to the government for the privilege of continuing to live in my house that I’ve already bought and paid for. I have to maintain a vehicle (and pay taxes on to get to work) so I can make money to pay for these things to live. At work, I had to produced picture ID to get the job. I have to show ID when I pick up my prescription medication, necessary for my health, because it is a controlled substance.
I don’t have to pay for a copy of my birth certificate. It is in the safety deposit box. I honestly can’t see how anyone survives in the year 2013. I have zero sympathy for someone that can’t get off of their lazy, fat ass and go to the DMV to get a free ID, and most average people feel that way. The government imposes great burdens on people who do the right thing and pay their way though life. This is a such a de minimis burden compared with what everyone else has to go through as to be laughable.
Certainly, many Americans agree with you, that a person of property and substance, such as yourself, is entitled to rights and privileges above and beyond those accorded to riff-raff and bums. Indeed, most of the original framers of our Constitution were wholly in accord with your views. Only a very few extremists and radicals like Thomas Paine dared demand that all men truly were equal, at least in the eyes of the law.
His views are reflected in the modern day political thinker and wit Will Rogers:
“Its not a crime to be poor in America, but it may as well be.”
You would think that any state that requires a photo ID would also provide an easy way of getting such an ID made. It’s silly to associate voting with having a car or documents to leave the country. Local precincts should be required to make such photo IDs for citizens for several months every summer. (Many precincts are schools which are closed in the summer.)
Or have alternative places – such as various state offices – where these IDs can be available year-round.
When I got my first passport, I had to pay someone to search for it in boxes in the basement of a nursing home.
Don’t some states charge for a Drivers’ License? (Similar to a poll tax, isn’t it?) And students who have established residency in a state should be allowed to use their school IDs as official state IDs – especially if it’s a state school, without question.
Why so many laws, all of a sudden, which have a negative effect on older people in some states, people of color, the people who are blind or unable to drive, and students?
Do these laws come from State Legislatures that are primarily Republican and often with a Republican Governor?
For those of you who watched the debaucle in 2012, did you see primarily white people in those lines?
Nobody is doing that. Every state had ID cards even before voter ID was a thing, I’m pretty sure.
That doesn’t mean it’s always as easy to get as it should be, or that it’s free just because a state calls it free, but it has nothing to do with driving or having a passport. Anybody (who has all of the documents and/or the resources to get them) can get ID, even if they can’t drive and don’t want to pay $100+ for a passport.
The pieces of the puzzle fall together, the impossible is explained!
Here in MN, for years the voter registration laws were comparatively lax. For instance, prove that Joe Jones lives at 123 Maple St. (like a utility bill or some such) and arrive with a registered voter who will testify, under perjury laws, that Joe Jones is there, in the flesh, and is known to the affidvater…affidavitist…the guy who says so!..
Anyway, that’s enough, you’re Joe Jones, and you can vote. Same day, no big hairy ass deal involved.
I have often used the Minnesota model in mocking horror tales about illegal voters. Very loose laws here, no problem so far but! BUT! It explains Jesse Ventura!
Nobody voted for him! No one who will admit it, at any rate. So, where does that leave us? With only one possible explanation! Massive voter fraud!
In light of this fact, I may be forced to review my position.
Pay attention, Zoe. All states charge for driver’s license,yes. But all states with Voter ID requirements also issue a free photo ID card for voter identification.
Not always, no. Rhode Island had a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor and yet passed Voter ID.
Yes, indeed, and it is quite different from the usual run of such laws. Which I suspect Bricker knows about but is busy at the moment, Zoe, but might take the time to explain at some future time.
It’s good hyperbole, but I’m not asking for privileges above and beyond, only the same. I need an ID to vote and so does everyone else.
Now, you might say that is the “law forbids rich and poor both from sleeping under bridges” comparison, but I disagree. Society requires at least *something from all of us to participate. I can (almost) afford my property taxes. I could surely do something else with that. And with everything else in my life I understand the need for basic government, so I pay while bitching about it.
So, everyone, in their dedication to society, can at least get off of their asses and go get a free ID. That’s a good baseline. Panhandle for your $47 if your Mom doesn’t have your birth certificate. I’ve got to work to pay my taxes.
If you want to make me look like George Washington on a slave plantation, then that is your choice, but I think you understand my point. I’ll bet everyone on this board has paid the government this year, and I’ll bet that everyone in this thread has an identification card. It’s not that large of a burden so as to make people moan and wail like they have to walk across hot coals to get an ID.
I don’t. Not here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Lost my wallet some years back, had everything in it, 2 days before election day. No ID.
Rules here: show some proof of residence, a bill in your name at your address. Got plenty of those, even paid some of them. Then you got to have somebody who is a registered voter swear that yes, indeed, that is the illustrious 'luc, no question. Well, my old man lives about three blocks away, he’ll do. So, that’s what I did, no problem.
What’s wrong with that? Where’s the problem that urgently needs solving?
If we take fraud prevention out of the equation, we’re left with changing eligibility requirements, from “citizen over 18” to “citizen over 18 who can produce a certain kind of identification document.”
Looking at it that way, I still oppose the laws, but somehow there’s nothing prohibiting blocking people from voting on the basis of which candidate they support, or are likely to support. This seems like a significant oversight!
Obviously anything restricting the franchise on the basis of race is unconstitutional; as I understand current jurisprudence on such things, what matters is that a law has that effect, regardless of intent, in most cases.
The left-wing, anti-liberty, government-has-the-temerity-to-do-shit-for-people state of New York charged me money for my photo ID.