Okay, see if I got this right. You’re saying, “I’m not going to go there, because if it happens, it happens, and there’s nothing I can do about it at that point”?
Is there a valid argument to the contrary? You’ve already structured the scenario so that this is the only outcome.
It’s like you opened this discussion with the specific intention that we’re supposed to fight the hypothetical. Given the conditions you outline, there is no reliable answer (within the constraints of the corruped system) to disenfranchisement if it’s allowed to take root.
My brain hurts.
Which is 100% correct. That doesn’t prove citizenship. Next problem?
Which has never happened.
Perhaps I can simply it.
I would use the instruments outlined in the proposed law in good faith, even knowing their limitations and loopholes, because if you look closely enough you’ll see almost every proof of citizenship has a loophole. And none of them will overcome the objections of a corrupt voting official who is committed to disenfranchising me.
So the law in question is terrible and I’m glad it went nowhere. We have to stay vigilant to make sure the next one also fails.
There’s also the fact that there is no great issue with non-citizens attempting to vote that needs to be addressed.
Passport? What’s the loophole?
Cite? You take your proof of citizenship and proof of residence to the county to register to vote and your saying one ahole of a clerk can stop you from registering or voting?
Well, it can be taken for granted that the push to disenfranchisement has no objective basis. But I don’t think that’s what the thread is actually about. It’s about how anyone could try to function under a corrupt regime where the worsr has already happened, and you as a voter have to come up with a response that will preserve your rights.
I don’t have one, have no need to get one.
If that one ahole clerk stands between me and registering to vote because the law put them in that place, then yeah.
What’s your alternative?
You not having a passport to prove citizenship is not a loophole.
I’m a citizen without a passport.
Last I looked, that is just fine. Maybe some corrupt yahoo who has really studied the issue may have figured out a passport is the only reliable “proof of citizenship” in the law, in which case I would be unable to prove my citizenship to their bureaucratic satisfaction.
But I’m still going to work with the tools provided for in the law, if this becomes the law.
And so there is no chance of going to another clerk or escalating it to a manager?
“Here’s my birth certificate and proof of residence.”
“I’m not accepting those.”
“Have a good day, sir.” and walk out.
And you are aware that there are writs of mandamus, right?
Again, how is that a loophole. Because by that logic, having no way to prove citizenship is a loophole to having to prove citizenship.
Incorrect. Get a passport.
If they said a birth certificate were sufficient and you didn’t have yours, is that the same logic?
Do you think a writ of mandamus can compel an official to act in violation of law? Keep it straight: we’re talking about the scenario where the SAVE Act or its horrible successor has become law, which means the ahole county clerk and every one of their fellows is obligated to refuse to register a prospective voter who can’t demonstrate citizenship to their satisfaction.
I’m sure you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing, because you’re no kind of fascist arguing in behalf of disenfranchisement, but the imposition on my civil rights should not be defended.
Which is why IMO in a sensible system there should be a free, easy , uniform, universally-accessible-with-LOW-effort way available to every citizen to obtain proof of citizenship.
(Notice I speak here of the proof of citizenship itself. Not of whether some clerk may or may not have it in for you.)
That is a shifting of the goalposts.
The assumption is that you have the correct documents and the “corrupt voting official” is denying your right to vote despite you meeting the legal requirements. So you go to court, show your documents, they say they will work and they issue the writ of mandamus.
If you do not have the right documents and the official is acting within the law then they are not corrupt and disenfranchising you.
Which I have said in EVERY Voter ID thread we have had. I believe you are the second doper to say that too so I will send you my newsletter.
The fact that the US issues passports is an indication that there exists a way to prove citizenship. You must demonstrate citizenship to receive a passport; passports are issued; ergo, there is a way to prove citizenship.
A passport as proof of citizenship is unreasonable simply because the expense of getting one is beyond the discretionary income of a lot of Americans.
I’ve never understood the “papers, please” argument, since we more or less have to have ID when out and about anyway. Okay, technically you don’t have to, as long as you’re willing not to drive or fly or buy alcohol or do any of the other numerous things that require ID.
This is honoring the precise placement of the goalposts as put forth in the original hypothetical: The SAVE act is law and you cannot compel a bureaucrat at the implementation level to register you in violation of its provisions.
Yes. The courts may provide relief. Kim Davis found that out. And that may have to be the answer, but I’m working within the stated constraints and rules in the subject law and the tools I have now.
You can stop your insulting accusation of arguing in bad faith.