# 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:** 362
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7221 "2014-10-28T18:38:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. You’re speaking of the legislative intent: what the legislature wanted to accomplish by the legislation. It’s true that there are times – if the plain language of the statute is ambiguous – where this is taken into account. > > But what’s being alleged here is a sort of secret, “real” intent behind a facade of phony intent. The intent of the legislatures’ efforts is typically discerned by reference to legislative debate or even in short preambles enacted in the statute; here, the allegation is that there’s a “shadow” motive behind the legislature’s claimed desire to ensure integrity in election conduct. It’s allegations like that I’m talking about when I say that individual legislators’ motives aren’t dispositive. Loosely speaking, though, I’d say it was likely that if legislators had “secret” motives, different from their publicly professed ones, it could well have an effect on that legislation. A bill not being able to serve two masters type of affair. In a situation where Legislator A enacts a law that fails to support their professed intent while actually supporting their “secret” intent, for later legislative purposes when looking back on debate or the preamble a disconnect could be observed which would be taken into account when judging that law. If legislator Me declares a public Anti-Balloon ordnance, publicly to prevent choking hazards for children but privately because I want my political opponent’s rubber factory to fail, and it’s later discovered that in fact the type of rubber that my ordnance outlaws isn’t even used for balloons, that would, seemingly be good reason for overturning that law. That would be an occasion where my “secret” intent matters, because it’s that intent that’s led to the law failing when judged against my public intent. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7222 "2014-10-28T18:57:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Both arguments can be accused of this. If voters are being suppressed (or thus perceived), this can illegitamize an election just as much as the perception of fraud can. Except that Voter ID laws are overwhelmingly popular, which means that the danger of any substantial portion of the population feeling like a result is illegitimate is small. And it means that the tiny fraction of people that do feel it’s a danger are even more motivated to… go get IDs! It’s a win, win, win. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7223 "2014-10-28T18:59:01Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Loosely speaking, though, I’d say it was likely that if legislators had “secret” motives, different from their publicly professed ones, it could well have an effect on that legislation. A bill not being able to serve two masters type of affair. In a situation where Legislator A enacts a law that fails to support their professed intent while actually supporting their “secret” intent, for later legislative purposes when looking back on debate or the preamble a disconnect could be observed which would be taken into account when judging that law. If legislator Me declares a public Anti-Balloon ordnance, publicly to prevent choking hazards for children but privately because I want my political opponent’s rubber factory to fail, and it’s later discovered that in fact the type of rubber that my ordnance outlaws isn’t even used for balloons, that would, seemingly be good reason for overturning that law. That would be an occasion where my “secret” intent matters, because it’s that intent that’s led to the law failing when judged against my public intent. I can’t think of any court case decided on the grounds you imagine. Can you? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7224 "2014-10-28T19:00:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except that Voter ID laws are overwhelmingly popular, which means that the danger of any substantial portion of the population feeling like a result is illegitimate is small. Jim Crow laws were popular in the South when they were in existence. And yet we still, rightly, recognize that pretty much all elections in the Jim Crow South were not legitimate. Jim Crow laws damaged the South for generations, despite its popularity at the time. So, not a win-win. ---
**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:** [October 28, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7225 "2014-10-28T20:02:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “Most?” > > No. What descriptor would you use and if it’s anything other than “_no_ liberals in this thread”, can you name them and cite relevant posts? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7226 "2014-10-28T20:34:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . They [intent] don’t matter when assessing the passage of a law. Intent matters when a court is deciding whether or not to overturn a law. (I first learned of this in the Louisiana creationism case, where much was made of one legislator who had carelessly stated that his intent was to bring religious education to schoolkids. This exposure of the intent of the legislature was part of the reasoning in the overturn of the law.) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7227 "2014-10-28T20:45:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I can’t think of any court case decided on the grounds you imagine. > > Can you? No, I can’t - as I’ve said, not a legal mind. Is the situation I’ve described a possible one? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7228 "2014-10-28T20:52:13Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, I can’t - as I’ve said, not a legal mind. > > Is the situation I’ve described a possible one? Not really, no. And in spite of **Trinopus** ’ analogy, the fact is that the Supreme Court considered this precise challenge and rejected it: > [@](#): > > In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it. In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge, Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F.Supp.2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. \*\*If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper. > > But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.\*\* The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7229 "2014-10-28T20:56:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not really, no. Why? I mean, per your cite, it seems like the hinging point in that case was that there were valid, strong, neutral justifications in addition to the bogus biased justification. In my imagined situation, the neutral justification is invalid, and your cite suggests (if I am reading it correctly) that if invalid justifications had been the only justifications in that case, the Supreme Court would have found differently. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7230 "2014-10-28T21:05:38Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Intent matters when a court is deciding whether or not to overturn a law. > > (I first learned of this in the Louisiana creationism case, where much was made of one legislator who had carelessly stated that his intent was to bring religious education to schoolkids. This exposure of the intent of the legislature was part of the reasoning in the overturn of the law.) Well, sure, but just because this one guy had such intentions, that is no reason to disregard the valid neutral justification of God’s law being taught in our schools! Besides, Jesus is very popular in America, and anybody who feels slighted by not having any Jesus is probably too feckless and lazy to go get some. People must express their commitment in positive terms. Used to be, people displayed that commitment by owning property, but these are more enlightened times and we demonstrate our commitment by how much of a pain in the butt we are willing to endure. The comfortable guy drives to the local high school, then home. The inner city guy stands in line for four or five hours, and they both cast their _one_ vote. That’s your “equal justice before the law”, right there! One vote each, after demonstrating their commitment, can’t get any more equal than that! Or maybe “won’t” is the right word, because they ain’t about to let that happen… Besides, liberals don’t want to rule by fiat, they prefer Volvos… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7231 "2014-10-28T21:09:16Z")
Ain’t neutral. We have evidence that it ain’t neutral, that the burden falls selectively on the population most likely to vote Democrat, hence, the law favors Republicans. Not “neutral”. Unless two out of three is close enough? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7232 "2014-10-28T21:24:39Z")
[And more lies from Hans von Spakovsky . . .](http://www.salon.com/2014/10/28/hans_von_spakovskys_voter_fraud_fraud_creating_a_panic_over_a_minor_problem/) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7233 "2014-10-28T23:09:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Ain’t neutral. We have evidence that it ain’t neutral, that the burden falls selectively on the population most likely to vote Democrat, hence, the law favors Republicans. > > Not “neutral”. Unless two out of three is close enough? That’s just meaningless complaining. As you claim you’re now saying, this isn’t anything except a rant at your perception of the poor choices made by the legislature, courts, governor, and zillions of people who support the law. We all think it’s neutral. You don’t. Net effect: law continues in force. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7234 "2014-10-28T23:12:57Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Why? Because preventing choking hazards for children is a valid goal. > [@](#): > > I mean, per your cite, it seems like the hinging point in that case was that there were valid, strong, neutral justifications in addition to the bogus biased justification. In my imagined situation, the neutral justification is invalid, and your cite suggests (if I am reading it correctly) that if invalid justifications had been the only justifications in that case, the Supreme Court would have found differently. Yes. But in your hypo, you created what appears to be a valid, neutral justification: preventing choking hazards for children. Although on re-reading it you call it an “anti-balloon ordinance,” but then say it outlaws a type of rubber not used for balloons. If that’s the case, the law fails the rational basis test, because it’s not rationally related to a government goal. No need to explore the mindset of legislators. ---
**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:** [October 28, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7235 "2014-10-28T23:37:23Z")
I remain curious who all of these would-be democracy-destroyers are. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7236 "2014-10-28T23:37:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Although on re-reading it you call it an “anti-balloon ordinance,” but then say it outlaws a type of rubber not used for balloons. If that’s the case, the law fails the rational basis test, because it’s not rationally related to a government goal. No need to explore the mindset of legislators. Thank you for re-reading. How do we know which government goal the ordinance (I spell bad) is meant to meet without examining the intent of legislators? And when you say that there is no _need_ to explore the mindset of legislators, does that mean there _will not_ be such an exploration? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7237 "2014-10-29T00:38:31Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Thank you for re-reading. > > How do we know which government goal the ordinance (I spell bad) is meant to meet without examining the intent of legislators? The statute typically sets out its purpose in the text. Even if it doesn’t, the State may defend its laws against challenge by articulating a permissible purpose, one that is rationally related to the function of the legislation. The intent of the legislators is not relevant – what’s relevant is what the law actually does. > [@](#): > > And when you say that there is no _need_ to explore the mindset of legislators, does that mean there _will not_ be such an exploration? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7238 "2014-10-29T00:42:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The intent of the legislators is not relevant – what’s relevant is what the law actually does. Yanno, I agree with this. Of course, when it comes to voter ID laws, what the law _actually does_ is disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, which in turn means it disproportionately disenfranchises brown people. IMHO. . ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7239 "2014-10-29T00:49:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s just meaningless complaining. > > As you claim you’re now saying, this isn’t anything except a rant at your perception of the poor choices made by the legislature, courts, governor, and zillions of people who support the law. We all think it’s neutral. You don’t. > > Net effect: law continues in force. Oh, well, have the dictionary people been informed about this new meaning for the word, “neutral”? I freely admit, I had not, in fact, its totally news to me even now! So, it used to mean like “unaligned”, not favoring one side or the other, but now that’s different, huh? Now, in its expanded meaning, “favoring one political party” is now “neutral”? So, even if reliable evidence were offered that the law did, in fact, favor one party over another, that wouldn’t matter because “neutral” now means what you say it means? And you’re sure about this? Flocks of legal eagles nodding behind you in solemn agreement? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/7240 "2014-10-29T01:53:52Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Yanno, I agree with this. > > Of course, when it comes to voter ID laws, what the law _actually does_ is disproportionately disenfranchise the poor, which in turn means it disproportionately disenfranchises brown people. > > IMHO. > . No it doesn’t. The Georgia study proves as much. Even if it did, I don’t care, because people that choose not to vote for such a trivial reason are not a concern. But it doesn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=361) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=363)