If he didn’t know that it was a violation, he wouldn’t ask how it’s a violation. If someone asks “how does the Sun produce heat and light?”, we assume that that person knows that the Sun does produce heat and light. If someone asks “How does RSS encryption work?”, we assume that person knows that RSS encryption does work. If someone asks “How is babby formed?”, we assume that person knows that babby is formed. And if someone asks “How does TX requiring State ID violate VRA?”, we assume that they know that TX requiring State ID does violate VRA.
Would you please point me to the relevant section of the US Constitution that supports this notion? I cannot seem to find it. Thank you very much.
Please let me know what these many, many reasons are. The only time I have been asked to prove citizenship is when I have returned to the United States from traveling to other countries. I have a passport that accomplishes this task. (I suppose officials in the countries I have visited also needed proof of citizenship, too.)
I am hard pressed to think of other times I have had to prove citizenship. I have been asked on employment applications if I am legally allowed to work in the United States. That does not require citizenship. I have provided my social security number for various purposes, but SSNs are issued to non-citizens as well. I have a Texas driver’s license, but it is not sufficient proof of citizenship for me to gain entry to the United States at a Port of Entry. Actually, Texas issues driver’s licenses to non-citizens as well.
(If it matters, I was born in Austin, Travis County, Texas, the United States of America. I can prove it through paperwork and because my mommy told me so. My first-hand memory of the event is rather murky, I’m afraid.)
Sure he would (well, might):
“Okay, smarty-pants, just how is it a violation?”
Not knowing the OP’s level of sarcasm, I choose to take the questions at face value. As you correctly pointed out, there are two:
Between the discussion here and the federal complaint, I believe that question has been answered.
That one’s trickier. Rather amusingly, what I feel is the strongest argument revolves around the absurdly high cost of obtaining State Department documents.
Beyond that, the U.S. argument seems to be, more or less, that lots of black and/or Hispanic citizens are poor.
If the government can not provide its citizen’s proof of their citizenship, that is not the failure of the individual.
To put it another way, every democratic government in the world allows citizens to vote within their jurisdiction. If people in the United States can not prove their duty to vote, it is a failure of the government, regardless of race or class. All Americans, in the case of the United States, have the right to vote.
If an individual is poor, incapacitated or elderly, the state or a state should make every effort to ensure they have the right to vote as long as they are qualified.
Bite my tongue - this is GQ. 
Let’s start at the beginning.
First, ALL that data is spread among the feds, 50 states, Allah knows how many counties, municipalities, parishes, school boards, etc.
Some of it is far too old to be in digital form. My Attendance records and report cards were hand-written or done on a typewriter. In those days, the school did not have anything resembling a Xerox. (And it was uphill to there, both ways, barefoot, in the snow).
Canada for example, come random unscheduled election times, had to send scrutineers door-to-door- an election is a massive expense. The last decade the kindly income tax folks have given the option - check this box and we will add you automatically to the voter list. Now, if only the provinces would use that list…
In the USA, nobody has the mandate to make such a collection of data. The NSA has no interest in creating a detailed Who’s Who of Joe Schmoes in USA. (a) technically only the FBI can do that, the NSA should not be doing so, (b) the NSA is more interested in toys that catalog and detail foreigners. Internal terror is the FBI’s problem.
The FBI has no money, nor mandate, nor care to build such a list. Nor does anyone else in the federal government. Nor do the states.
Nobody is shelling out money to build a list. Nobody cares. Now consider jurisdiction, accuracy, etc. Should the DMV cede its responsibility to issue valid drivers licenses? “Oh, heck, if the computer says he’s Fred Jones, pop out a licence…” Or passports? Or pilot licenses or trucker license? Who’s job would it be to ferret out mistakes? Because, of course, as everyone who’s had dealings with DMV or your credit score or any other ID system knows, the computers never make mistakes. Why would bureaucrats - in DMV, schools or universities, Medicare, Vital Records, the passport office, IRS etc. - want to give the most important job - identify the customer - to someone else.
(The joke in database circles is - if you have a piece of data, there’s a good chance it’s accurate, and you know. If you have two pieces of data, and they disagree, the only thing you know for sure is the data contains an error.)
Consider where the OP comes from - most states don’t even bother, unlike Canada, to build a voters’ list. They spend the minimal amount of money and make you - the one with the right to vote - spend the time and money to make their list. The point of the VRA was that sometimes, deliberately or accidentally, the end result is to make it very difficult for a protected group to vote.
(Note the simplicity of the Canadian system. They knock on every door. When you answer, they ask for a list of names of qualified voters who live there. No ID, nothing other than “who are you”. If you miss them, go visit your returning office with ID - not difficult if you are inner city, it’s within a decent walking distance. I’ve lost track of the fed and provincial rules if you don’t register, you used to be able to swear in.)
Not even a nice try…but a nice illustration of the fallacy of equivocation.
The OP’s formulation is a perfectly common response to an argument:
“And of course Christianity is the basis of our nation.”
“How is Christianity the basis of our nation?”
The second speaker in that instance does not assume that Christianity is the basis of our nation. In fact, he rejects the premise – he is asking for some proof of a claim he finds untenable.
In this case, the OP was reacting to the various false claims made elsewhere by persons such as yourself; those false claims triggered his incredulous response.
The OP does not begin by assuming that the Texas requirement violates the Voting Rights Act – he begins by rejecting the premise and demanding evidence to the contrary.
It’s the Tenth Amendment, which says that because the federal Constitution does not grant Congress the power to manage identification in elections, the power belongs to the states. And Texas has used that power.
Next question?
Felons?
That’s your opinion, not a factual statement. Factually, the answer is that states are constitutionally permitted to require photo ID in order to vote: see Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).
Considering that Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is the most recent Supreme Court case on the subject, and it’s from 2008…isn’t it curious how seldom the federal complaint mentions it?
The argument that “You need an ID to buy hookers or blow, so you should need one to vote” avoids the obvious (or perhaps not so obvious) reality that in order to vote you must register to vote. And the registration process already has safeguards/requirements in place to identify you as a person qualified to cast a ballot. The current spate of “voter ID” laws impose an additional burden – that, after being registered and having your qualifications reviewed and approved by the voting registrar or other authority in your jurisdiction, you must in addition bring a photo ID with you when you actually cast your ballot. And a special kind of photo ID (typically not including a student ID or some others).
Proponents of these laws tout them as necessary to prevent (or guard against the fear of) in-person voter fraud. Even though those same proponents admit they cannot prove the existence of such fraud, cannot even make an argument that such fraud occurs at a rate greater than that of a meteorite landing in your living room, and cannot reasonably postulate that in-person voter fraud would be skewed toward or against any particular political position or party and would, in the exceedingly rare instances in which it might occur, be anything but a wash.
So lots of voters who proved their citizenship years ago when they registered to vote but have moved several times, or married and/or divorced, and may never have owned a car now do not have current, approved photo ID. The machinations necessary for these people to obtain that ID are not insignificant to many of them. Thus it can be expected that some portion of these people, folks who are indeed qualified to vote by citizenship and duly registered and accepted as qualified by their voting registrar but disqualified only by the imposition of a new standard, will decide “Screw it, too much trouble, too much time off work, too much expense…” and just not vote.
It is a fact that these potential voters being so impacted skew toward minorities and youth, with a smattering of older folks. And it is a fact that these demographics skew towards the D versus the R on the political spectrum. Thus it is unsurprising to many of us that it is the R pole that is pushing so hard for these new ID laws, despite the lack of demonstrated instances of in-person voter fraud. And at the same time completely ignoring the much larger fraud threat posed by absentee ballots, of which there are plenty of documented instances. The apparent desire to inhibit voting by demographics that skew D-ward seems to be the real incentive for these laws. It remains to be seen if the actual effect of these laws will indeed turn out to be discriminatory. If so, that will seem to put these laws in violation of the parts of the VRA that remain unaffected by the recent Supreme Court decision. (And I’ve tried to keep this suitable for GQ.)
If you don’t have a driver’s license, you may never have had a photo ID and be utterly incapable of providing one. And how did having a photo ID on your driver’s license prove anything other that you once got a driver’s license and then they added a photo. And what good is a birth certificate. It has nothing on it to connect it to you. Maybe a footprint, but my feet have grown quite a bit since I was born (and mine doesn’t have a footprint). No, the only purpose of such a law can be to disfranchise the poorest, oldest, students, and anyone else likely to vote for the wrong party.
Incidentally, someone in another thread mentioned that some states require you apply in person for a copy of your birth certificate. Fortunately, PA doesn’t (or at least didn’t when I applied in 1999).
You have to be a citizen of the United States. How does anyone know if you are a citizen or not - your say-so? Just because you’re not asked for “papers, please” on a regular basis does NOT mean that you can’t or won’t be required to prove citizenship at some point. I can’t imagine that you honestly believe that just because you show up at a polling place, you should be allowed to cast a vote - do you?
Hypothetical - if I went to England, or France, or Japan, or Mexico, and tried to vote in their country’s elections - would I have to prove I was a citizen or lawful voter, or could I just show up and vote?
Most places (note – “most” does not equal “all”) you have to first register to vote in a separate interaction from actually voting. In doing so you will be required to make proof that you are entitled to exercise the franchise. Photo ID may play a role in that, but most places (see previous caveat) allow your proof to take some combination of a variety of forms. This documentation and/or attestation will be reviewed by competent authority and your permission to vote either granted or denied. Hell, that authority might even issue you a “voter ID card” like the one in my wallet. No photo on mine though <sigh>.
Again, this is quite distinct from a requirement to show a photo ID at your voting place every time you present yourself to vote. More so since you might have presented your *bona fides *some years ago and now lost them through mischance or allowed them to become outdated by change of marital status or place of abode. It is hardly conceivable that your actual citizenship (meaning that special bit of reality that resides in your personhood) has become diluted or misplaced since you last voted.
You failed. To pick a couple of clear examples, “…cannot reasonably postulate that in-person voter fraud would be skewed toward or against any particular political position or party and would, in the exceedingly rare instances in which it might occur, be anything but a wash,” is manifestly untrue. To the extent that illegal votes include felons voting where it’s impermissible for them to do so, those votes would reliably trend in one direction.
Moreover, the characterization of the argument is flawed, overall. My argument is not that thousands of illegal votes are cast, but that hundreds are. In the vast majority of cases, a hundred votes will not change an election’s outcome. But in ultra-rare cases, it will, and the lesson we should take from Florida in 2000 is that ultra-rare cases can happen and important outcomes can hang in the balance. The reason for ensuring voter identity at the polls is to ensure voter confidence in the legitimacy of every outcome, even those with ultra-rare razor-thin margins.
In GD, your strawmanning of this argument would be regrettable but, alas, par for the course. I cannot imagine under what theory it is acceptable in GQ.
So I am sure you’ve reported me.
Since felons voting illegally (where such is illegal) has nothing to do with in-person voter impersonation fraud, your statement does not refute mine. Felons will not be stopped from voting at the polls merely by holding or not holding a picture ID. They will be stopped when their names are removed from the “registered voter” rolls. And that’s a job for the voting registrar, not a poll worker checking IDs on election day.
Perhaps my reference to “guard against the fear of” can be construed as applying to one of your favorite supporting arguments for these laws, to wit that there is an incipient crisis of voter confidence. But I note that your position on the matter has – well, evolved – and voter confidence is not the entirety of it. Still, your defense of your own position (“My argument is not…”) is misplaced. I wasn’t arguing with you to begin with. I was making a factual statement paraphrasing some of the arguments some advocates have put forth in support of these laws. It really isn’t always all about you, Bricker. Your quoted statement and your open insult (“In GD, your strawmanning of this argument would be regrettable but, alas, par for the course.” [emphasis mine]) makes it clear that it was you, not me, changing this from GQ to GD.
Getting a valid state photo identification of some kind is not necessarily easy. It might require one or more of these things:
- Proof of birth/identity—birth certificate, school records, etc.
- Proof of residency—utility bills, etc.
- Proof of citizenship—passport, birth certificate, etc.
If someone has sufficient income and pays taxes, they will have a Social Security card, but that doesn’t count for any of these things.
A poor or elderly person might not have one or more of these items. The last time I helped someone get a state identification card—in this case an immigrant—it took several weeks of work and very complicated dealings with several state and federal agencies. I had to take off several days of work to make this happen.
Poor or elderly people just might not have the time or the ability to negotiate such complex transactions. They might not be able to take time off work. They might not have reliable transportation to get to all the places they need to go. They just might not have the education to understand the instructions they are given and figure out how to get through the maze.
And even if the final identification is free, that doesn’t mean that the whole process isn’t going to cost them significantly, either in lost wages or other expenses.
MODERATOR NOTE
I should have moved this one earlier, when it turned into a debate. Moved frrom GQ to GD.
samclem, moderator
Nonsense. Felons are discouraged by this law the same way car thieves are discouraged: knowing the law punishes your conduct. Without voter ID, there is essentially zero chance of proving the felon voted. This is repeatedly illustrated by cases like Ramon Cue of Miami. Despite being an illegal voter, voting records show he has voted. But he simply denies it. No Voter ID, no proof sufficient to convict Mr. Cue.
My argument has not “evolved,” although I fail to see why it would be a bad thing if it had. Certainly my opinion on other matters – like gay marriage – has indeed evolved, and I aver I’m the better for it.
My argument on this matter remains as it’s always been: the issue is voter confidence in extremely close elections.
If you were making a factual statement “paraphrasing some of the arguments some advocates have put forth in support of these laws,” then you chose weaker arguments when you were well aware of the existence of stronger arguments. And that is, of course, the fallacy of strawmanning. I’m amused that you take this simple accurate analysis of a fallacious argument as “insulting.”
“Nonsense” yourself. You’ve now taken this into a ridiculous “wheels within wheels within wheels” of unproven assertions, all to support a reprehensible law. You ask us to believe that an (i) unproven single case demonstrates that an (ii) unproven but possible someday significant number of felons who (iii) presently seem to lean toward but are not exclusively Democratic and (iv) who might or might not someday vote illegally might perhaps be (v) discouraged to some greater or lesser unprovable degree by fear of discovery and conviction, thus – CONFIDENCE! Or FREEDOM! Or just simple BULLSHIT!
Oh, and according to your cite, not only has your shining example Ramon Cue not been convicted or charged with voter fraud, he also isn’t a felon. If anything, he is simply a non-citizen. Using him as an example of felons voting is just – well, something less than your finest work. I might suggest that turnabout is fair play and this, like so much of your defense of these voter ID laws, is both disingenuous and “par for the course”. Or I might not.
(Thanks for the move, samclem!)