# I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 12, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943 "2012-06-12T19:15:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 280
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5581 "2014-06-18T18:50:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Sure. So? Nothing. My saying this is more democracy in action. That’s apparently the new safety net. It’s all democracy in action. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5582 "2014-06-18T18:56:39Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Georgia on your mind? > > At the time, wasn’t Georgia bound by obligations to the Justice Dept to conform to principles designed to prevent discriminatory voting laws, before the Supremes lifted the onerous burden from their shoulders? And did not the Republican legislatures in states like Texas fall all over each other in a pell-mell rush…_immediately_, as in, the _very next day!_… to get these laws in place as quickly as possible, laws that we may presume they couldn’t have gotten away with before? Or is that simply a happy coincidence? > > Wouldn’t that imply that Georgia’s laws were crafted and imposed in a non-discriminatory fashion? And hasn’t our point been, all along, that whether or not voter id laws are the bee’s knees or not, a discriminatory application of those laws is not legitimate? But if those laws could be crafted and imposed in such a way as to ensure fairness and equality before the law, then we have no problem? What part of Georgia’s laws are you talking about, specifically? > [@](#): > > As well, isn’t it a fact that voter turnout goes upward year after year, simply as an effect of population growth? Indeed, isn’t it a fact that minority populations in the South have been growing disproportionately, due to a return of minority populations? Wouldn’t we then expect that minority voting would increase even if an effort had been made to restrict and retard that growth? An effort, I remind, that would have had to comply with JustDept standards? Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period. And since this thread began before the Supreme COurt handed down Shelby, I assume your objections to Voter ID law existed even before the Justice Department was defanged. Is that incorrect? The objections raised at this thread’s beginning were all about what might happen if Voter ID laws were invoked after the Supreme Court struck down Section 5? > [@](#): > > You are on record as stipulating that “some” Republicans, perhaps even most, were complicit in a malign and nefarious plot to rig the game, yes? Are we now to believe that if they failed in that effort, then they are innocent? Who cares? I have no idea who is innocent, guilty, effective, or ineffective in their attempts to be innocent or guilty. I can’t possibly know the motives of the legislators. I just support Voter ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5583 "2014-06-18T19:07:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nothing. My saying this is more democracy in action. > > That’s apparently the new safety net. It’s all democracy in action. There are of course multiple valid descriptors; the point being that criticizing what one perceives as a misapplication of democracy does not translate to a desire to eliminate democracy, and an accusation of such is vapid at best. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5584 "2014-06-18T19:30:52Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > There are of course multiple valid descriptors; the point being that criticizing what one perceives as a misapplication of democracy does not translate to a desire to eliminate democracy, and an accusation of such is vapid at best. Vapid? Nah, man, it was democracy in action. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5585 "2014-06-18T19:36:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What part of Georgia’s laws are you talking about, specifically?.. A nifty evasion. You may assume that I am referring to the “Georgia laws” that you cited in support of your argument. You do recall citing them, yes? So, how is it that you are suddenly perplexed as to my reference? > [@](#): > > …Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period… And you attribute this happy fact to the generosity and civic virtue of the Republican Party? There being no other reasonable explanation? > [@](#): > > …And since this thread began before the Supreme COurt handed down Shelby, I assume your objections to Voter ID law existed even before the Justice Department was defanged. Is that incorrect? The objections raised at this thread’s beginning were all about what might happen if Voter ID laws were invoked after the Supreme Court struck down Section 5?.. Since I did not make such arguments, I feel no obligation to defend them. However, you may assume whatever you like. > [@](#): > > …Who cares? I have no idea who is innocent, guilty, effective, or ineffective in their attempts to be innocent or guilty. I can’t possibly know the motives of the legislators. > > I just support Voter ID. I’m sorry, I must have confused you with the other **Bricker**. The one who stipulated that, yes, indeed, some of the motivations of some unspecified number of Republican legislators were malign. And yes, we are all thoroughly aware that you support voter id, which I assume is why you keep trying to shift the argument to that question. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5586 "2014-06-18T19:37:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > You are on record as stipulating that “some” Republicans, perhaps even most, were complicit in a malign and nefarious plot to rig the game, yes? > > Who cares? Not you, evidently. After 1000+ posts, thanks for finally summarizing your stance succinctly. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5587 "2014-06-18T19:49:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Who cares? I have no idea who is innocent, guilty, effective, or ineffective in their attempts to be innocent or guilty. I can’t possibly know the motives of the legislators. Of course you fucking can. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > I just support Voter ID. And we all know \*your \*motives, too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5588 "2014-06-18T19:52:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Vapid? Nah, man, it was democracy in action. Great, then by the principles of equality, everything you’ve said in this thread had exactly the same merit as anything anyone’s said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5589 "2014-06-18T20:01:49Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Great, then by the principles of equality, everything you’ve said in this thread had exactly the same merit as anything anyone’s said. Yeah. It does seem anti-climatic. So perhaps “it’s democracy in action,” is not a useful rejoinder, true as it obviously is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5590 "2014-06-18T20:07:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > A nifty evasion. You may assume that I am referring to the “Georgia laws” that you cited in support of your argument. You do recall citing them, yes? So, how is it that you are suddenly perplexed as to my reference? I was perplexed because OCGA § 21-2-417 is perfectly acceptable, so far as I am concerned. Since you also believe it to be acceptable, then we don’t really have any further areas of disagreement. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry, I must have confused you with the other **Bricker**. The one who stipulated that, yes, indeed, some of the motivations of some unspecified number of Republican legislators were malign. Yes, undoubtedly they were. > [@](#): > > And yes, we are all thoroughly aware that you support voter id, which I assume is why you keep trying to shift the argument to that question. I’ve never argued any other question. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5591 "2014-06-18T20:32:56Z")
No matter how many times we repeat that the issue is using legitimate laws to illegitimate purposes, every time we do, you blink, once, twice, and blandly resume your argument about what a great thing voter id is. Who are you arguing _with_? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5592 "2014-06-18T23:34:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No matter how many times we repeat that the issue is using legitimate laws to illegitimate purposes, every time we do, you blink, once, twice, and blandly resume your argument about what a great thing voter id is. > > Who are you arguing _with_? If that’s a face-saving retreat, fine. But you cannot seriously contend that there have not been hundreds of posts here attacking the existence of Voter ID laws, and not by any means limited to the concept that they’re fine laws except for the nasty thoughts in the heads of the Republicans when they passed them. All the way back in 1904, the Supreme Court confronted the weighty issue of the proper taxation of the butter substitute oleomargarine - I guess they could believe it wasn’t butter. The law in question taxed margarine very little if it wasn’t colored yellow, but imposed a high tax if the oleomargarine was colored yellow to look like butter. One McCray, a licensed vendor of yellow oleomargarine, sued under the Due Process Clause, saying that Congress was depriving him of property. He alleged that Congress’ real purpose was obvious: colored natural butter wasn’t taxed at all. The real scheme in the minds of these no-good crooks in Congress, averred McCray, was to tax oleo sellers such as himself right out of business because they, Congress, were beholden to powerful dairy interests. In response to this allegation of an improper motive, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White wrote: “The decisions of this court from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted.” What, then, can correct a lawful act which is done with a wrongful purpose or motive? His answer: “The remedy for this, however, lies, not in the abuse by the judicial authority of its functions, but in the people, upon whom, after all, under our institutions, reliance must be placed for the correction of abuses committed in the exercise of a lawful power.” This principle was reaffirmed in 1968, when Chief Justice Warren wrote for a Court that was considering a matter more weighty, albeit less tasty, than butter substitutes. David Paul O’Brien had burned his draft card in front of the courthouse, and was charged with a federal crime as a result. Congress had, in 1965, amended federal law to include “knowingly destroying” a draft card as a crime, and O’Brien alleged that it was obvious Congress’ real purpose was to prevent public destruction of draft cards, and thus chill free speech. Since that motive frustrated his First Amendment rights, argued O’Brien, he could not be convicted. In upholding O’Brien’s conviction, the Chief Justice wrote, “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Motives that might have been in the minds of some fraction of the legislators who voted for a proposal are utterly meaningless in deciding the validity of that proposal. You continue to push the supposed dark desires of the legislators, and I have no doubt that as to many of them, you’re correct in whole or in part. But that means nothing. The law gets evaluated on its words, not on what motives might have been in play. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5593 "2014-06-18T23:56:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that means nothing. The law gets evaluated on its words, not on what motives might have been in play. Well, also for its potential for negative unintended effects. And negative intended effects. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5594 "2014-06-19T00:16:54Z")
> [@JimNightshade](#): > > Holy crap - 5569 posts and you still haven’t reached any agreement. > > Good luck. No, but it’s fun to watch the clusterfuck. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5595 "2014-06-19T03:25:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …But that means nothing. The law gets evaluated on its words, not on what motives might have been in play. Oh, you’re just having a spasm of political nihilism, it’ll pass! Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, in no time at all, you’ll be right back at the same old pop stand, passing out pious and self-righteous drivel about liberal hypocrisy! ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5596 "2014-06-19T03:30:09Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Moreover, as for the vast majority of Voter ID laws, I don’t believe it’s a matter of “people are proposing,” which would indeed suggest a burden falling on the ones proposing the adoption of a new law. Instead, these laws have already been passed. They exist. The discussion here may be, “Let’s get rid of them,” or it may simply be, “They are a bad idea.” Either way, the persuasive burden falls to the one asserting the claim. I think there’s a gray area with very-newly-passed laws. There’s no reason that the arguments presented on both sides of “that minimum-wage-law that has just been proposed in Colorado is a terrible idea” and “that minimum-wage-law that I just heard about that Colorado just passed is a terrible idea” shouldn’t be basically the same in each case. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5597 "2014-06-19T05:04:14Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The problem is, **Max** , that in this country, at present, there really isn’t any mechanism to change the rules of an election _except_ by action taken by the elected body. There certainly could be steps taken to mitigate the direct influence of the elected body – bipartisan commissions, etc. – but ultimately the appointment of those commissions will be done by the elected officials. So it seems to me that what you’re looking for is some sort of an external body to veto or modify or create in the first instance rules that govern elections, and there just ain’t any such animal in the United States, so far as I know. Well, some states have non-partisan redistricting commissions, which I believe is a step in the right direction. For instance, California has such a commission. (Note, by the way, that California is of course a massively left-leaning state, so if liberals in general were eager to constantly eke out every electoral edge you’d think that we’d constantly be gerrymandering its congressional districts, and yet we’re not.) Nonetheless, clearly your larger point stands. So… how does that affect our current debate? My position is that I personally hold laws-affecting-elections to a high standard of ethical scrutiny, and I suggest that others do so as well… you seem at least understanding of that position, but it is not one you subscribe to yourself? > [@](#): > > Sure. But do you make room for the possibility that not everyone views that context with the same jaundiced eye that you do? > > These laws are all passed, signed, approved by the courts – at what point do you believe it’s appropriate to say, “I still oppose them, but they are legitimate?” Again you seem to be arguing with something I’m not saying. I’m not saying “I have proven that these laws MUST be found illegal”, I’m saying “I personally find these laws to be ethically lacking, for the following reasons, and I believe that others should subscribe to my same views. I think the people proposing these laws acted unethically, and the US would be better off if people did not do so, and I expect someone to be able to say that while they support the putative aims of the laws they are also troubled by the precise circumstances”. > [@](#): > > Same question: YOU think it’s not that big a deal. Others disagree. They have convinced enough legislators, governors, and judges to accept this solution – or to cynically support this solution for nefarious ends, I suppose. How many bites to the apple can you demand? Again, when have I demanded anything. I’ve made an argument, which is that some level of “voter unconfidence” has been present in the US since it’s beginning, and is present in nearly every democracy on earth. That’s evidence that it’s not a dire issue. It’s not proof, but it’s an argument. If you disagree, well, fine, but don’t act like I’m arbitrarily just demanding something. > [@](#): > > “Unable?” No. Chose not to. And that’s a big part of what we keep coming back to. Do you think that’s a black and white issue? There’s a wide spectrum with “literally devoted maximal human effort to voting and still failed” on one end and “put zero effort into it due to nothing more than laziness” on the other end. There are certainly going to be people near the first end of that spectrum who could have conceivably prioritized some things differently and sacrificed something and been able to vote, but were not UNABLE to vote. For you to divide things into “voted” and “chose not to vote” trivializes the issue. > [@](#): > > But it’s not any kind of a fatal flaw to tackle reform piecemeal, to choose to take one step only, especially when other steps are simply not practical. To do so would be to make the perfect the enemy of the good: to say that until we can completely solve the problem, we ought not to start. I’m not saying that at all. We SHOULD start. But we should start in a fashion that doesn’t have negative side effects. And, while we’re at it, we should also start with a big and important step, such as auditable voting machines. > [@](#): > > You carve out this tiny aspect of meddling with election results as though it has some special and independent meaning. But gerrymandering can ensure that everyone gets to vote and yet their votes are diluted or meaningless. I consider the pernicious motives that sometimes animate gerrymandering to be more harmful than any which animate Voter ID, and more to the point I consider them as birds of a feather – that is, there is no meaningful reason to treat them with any more or less disdain. And my outrage meter is broken. Ummm, I’ve lost track of what you are saying. I think Gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage is scuzzy and antidemocratic, and I decry it. Do you think that Gerrymandering is just so totally routine that it’s now “everyone always does it at all times”? (Or are you taking issue with my distinction between gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage and gerrymandering-to-ensure-a-majority-black-district? If so, that’s an interesting topic worthy of debate but seems outside the scope of this thread.) ---
**Author:** ![AlienVessels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba8739/32.png) [@AlienVessels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlienVessels)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5598 "2014-06-19T05:20:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You say it’s obvious, but the only measurements of actual minority turnout following the institution of a Voter ID law show no measurable drop. > > Can you explain the discrepancy? If it’s not obvious to you that behavior can have multiple contributing factors, probably not. Even if the effect is small the likely number affected is probably vastly larger than documented cases of fraudulent voting. [http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/dropp\_kyle\_ap\_workshop.pdf](http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/dropp_kyle_ap_workshop.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5599 "2014-06-19T10:50:54Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think there’s a gray area with very-newly-passed laws. There’s no reason that the arguments presented on both sides of “that minimum-wage-law that has just been proposed in Colorado is a terrible idea” and “that minimum-wage-law that I just heard about that Colorado just passed is a terrible idea” shouldn’t be basically the same in each case. “Very newly passed laws,” would mean what, in terms of time? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2014, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/5600 "2014-06-19T10:53:59Z")
> [@AlienVessels](#): > > If it’s not obvious to you that behavior can have multiple contributing factors, probably not. > > Even if the effect is small the likely number affected is probably vastly larger than documented cases of fraudulent voting. > > [http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/dropp\_kyle\_ap\_workshop.pdf](http://politicalscience.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/workshop-materials/dropp_kyle_ap_workshop.pdf) Why are you allowed to use “likely number” and “probably” but my side of the argument must be “documented cases?” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=279) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=281)