# 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:** 425
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8481 "2016-02-08T06:59:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > And they did. > > And the trial judge ruled sweepingly against Texas. > > And Texas appealed. > > And Texas then won their major point at the Fifth Circuit, although it lost some others which were sent back to the trial court for reconsideration under the correct standard. > > Are you at all interested in hearing what the Fifth Circuit said? I will explain it, if you care. If you don’t care because you’re right and they’re wrong no matter what, I won’t waste typing time. What I see is mostly bad faith in a discussion coming from you, can you see that when you told us that “The Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means” It was just counting on me not knowing what took place. As in if I had not known what took place you expected that I would then just shut up? Well, I knew that indeed what the supreme court decided was it was the fifth article the one that was declared unconstitutional, and indeed it is not the end of the story, the courts did found in the Texas case that: > **[Texas voter ID law ruled invalid - in part - SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2015/08/texas-voter-id-law-ruled-invalid-in-part-2/)** > > Acting one day before the fiftieth anniversary of the nation’s most important voting rights law, a federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that Texas will be barred from enforcing at least part of its four-year-old law that requires a photo ID... > [@](#): > > The victory that the challengers did win from the Fifth Circuit panel was that the practical effect of the photo ID law was that it made it harder for minorities and for the poor to obtain the necessary documents with photos to prove their identity. Such a “discriminatory effect” is outlawed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and it can be proved without showing a deliberate intent to discriminate. > > The ruling by the panel on Wednesday had several key parts. Here, in summary, is what it ruled: > > First, the 2011 photo ID requirement is illegal under Section 2, because of the negative impact it has on the voting opportunities of minorities and the poor. > > Second, Judge Ramos must now reopen the case in her Corpus Christi court, and fashion a specific legal remedy for that violation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8482 "2016-02-08T07:06:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Funny that you disagreed all along, no matter what the earlier results were. AFAIK you are not really correct on that, the earlier results from published articles in journals gave mixed results. > **[Voter ID laws and the evidence: A report from the Government...](https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/voter-id-laws-empirical-evidence-government-accountability-office/)** > > 2014 review of research on U.S. voter ID laws, with a focus on a new study from the GAO that estimates their impact on voter turnout in two states that changed their laws between the 2008 and 2012 elections. Not just what you claimed early, and even then the review from the Journalist Resource does point that: > [@](#): > > In terms of the original quasi-experimental analysis, the GAO researchers concluded that “voter turnout decreased in Kansas and Tennessee from the 2008 to the 2012 general elections to a greater extent than turnout decreased in selected comparison states Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware and Maine. Our analysis suggests that the turnout decreases in Kansas and Tennessee beyond decreases in comparison states were attributable to changes in the two states’ voter ID requirements.” > [@](#): > > GAO researchers note that, after reviewing the results, Kansas and Tennessee officials disagreed with the conclusions. But the GAO “believes its methodology was robust and valid as, among other things, GAO’s selection of treatment and comparison states controlled for factors that could significantly affect voter turnout, and GAO used three data sources it determined to be reliable to assess turnout effects.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8483 "2016-02-08T08:35:03Z")
Your professor’s name is Daron Shaw. A campaign worker and consultant for G.W. Bush and Rick Perry, and also active in the campaign of Gov. Abbot. And, of course, his testimony appears to be founded exclusively on his own research. He also is apparently a familiar face over at Fox News, judging from a quick glance at his google. Know the strict standards for impartiality that you encourage in others, it was instantly clear to me that you had simply neglected to advise us that your source is a Republican political operative. No doubt the urgent need to remind us, yet again, of the function of courts and legislatures. So, I helped you out. You’re welcome. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8484 "2016-02-08T09:57:39Z")
@\*\* Bricker\*\* – Human beings would find you less alien and less offensive if you could debate like a human, rather than a lawyer. Like some asshole Esquire prattling “Does not fit … Must acquit” you’ll seize on one factoid, often irrelevant, and use it to ignore relevant facts. You’re on record as claiming that the criminal Bush-Cheney War against Gog and Magog, based on deliberate lies and plans to help Halliburton etrc. profit, which wasted a million lives, trillions of dollars and destabilized the Middle East, was less criminal than Monica-gate. Why? A smirky legalistic argument that one President was impeached, the other wasn’t. > [@Bricker](#): > > Too bad. > The Supreme Court did not agree … > The Supreme Court said: > Supreme Court … Supreme Court … Supreme Court Here you babble about the “Supreme Court said” as though its words were those of Yahweh etched in Stone. I understand that a SCOTUS decision, even if by a vote of 5-4, becomes the Law of the Land. But we’re not discussing the Law of the Land; we’re trying to distinguish Right from Wrong. (I don’t think you even understand the concept of Right v. Wrong or Good v. Evil except in the context of bamboozling a jury or judge.) And with twits like Thomas, Scalia, Alito on the Court it’s hard to give its rulings much respect. If these twits were eviscerated and sent to the Circle of Hell where they belong most of your “Natter natter natter, Scotus agrees with me–ee” would fail. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8485 "2016-02-08T13:09:58Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > You’re on record as claiming that the criminal Bush-Cheney War against Gog and Magog, based on deliberate lies and plans to help Halliburton etrc. profit, which wasted a million lives, trillions of dollars and destabilized the Middle East, was less criminal than Monica-gate. Why? A smirky legalistic argument that one President was impeached, the other wasn’t. What? A legalistic argument used to determine which act was more criminal? That’s as crazy as using a scale to determine which of two objects weighs more! > [@](#): > > I understand that a SCOTUS decision, even if by a vote of 5-4, becomes the Law of the Land. But we’re not discussing the Law of the Land; we’re trying to distinguish Right from Wrong. (I don’t think you even understand the concept of Right v. Wrong or Good v. Evil except in the context of bamboozling a jury or judge.) Forget it. You and I will not agree on matters of right and wrong, because we share no common framework to judge such questions. I don’t concede your ability to correctly discern right and wrong; you’re willing to adopt and advance moral wrongness in all sorts of circumstances to serve your warped political ideas. You doubtless feel the same of me. So put that idea out of your mind: we are NOT meaningfully debating right and wrong. Your ideas of right and wrong are useless. But in this country, we recognize that we may not agree on right and wrong. And we have all agreed on systems to craft laws even without unanimous agreement. So if you wish to declare your moral position supreme here, you go right ahead; to me, it’s as impressive as a sudden attack from a soap bubble. As long as you understand that the actual legal effect of your declaration is zero, and that the actual legal effect is what I care about, since it, rather than your utterly groundless attempts at moral posture, actually affects the process we follow in this country. Gog and Magog? Really? Who writes your material? ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8486 "2016-02-08T14:02:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. > > Certainly it did in the past. But merely because it did in the past is not sufficient reason to disallow valid neutral justifications for current Voter ID laws. > > So I acknowledge that it happened in the past, but I do not concede it does occur now. Then your argument is based on flawed premise and is critically wounded as a result. Do you at least acknowledge the existence of Republicans who believe and have publicly stated that adding restrictions to voters is for them an electoral strategy? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8487 "2016-02-08T14:32:31Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Then your argument is based on flawed premise and is critically wounded as a result. Obviously I disagree. And surely the futility of simply declaring a claim to be fact is evident? > [@](#): > > Do you at least acknowledge the existence of Republicans who believe and have publicly stated that adding restrictions to voters is for them an electoral strategy? Yes, I do, and this is not the first time I have done so. Do you acknowledge the existence of Democrats who believe there was a war against “Gog and Magog?” ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8488 "2016-02-08T14:41:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Obviously I disagree. And surely the futility of simply declaring a claim to be fact is evident? No, the evidence of you engaging in willful blindness in order to preserve your argument is sufficient. > [@](#): > > Yes, I do, and this is not the first time I have done so. And yet you do not concede that systematic disenfranchisement efforts continue even today? > [@](#): > > Do you acknowledge the existence of Democrats who believe there was a war against “Gog and Magog?” Sure, to the extent that is relevant, i.e. not at all. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8489 "2016-02-08T16:17:42Z")
As expected, Bricker hides behind rhetoric, unwilling to admit his own immorality and ignorance. > [@Bricker](#): > > What? A legalistic argument used to determine which act was more criminal? > > That’s as crazy as using a scale to determine which of two objects weighs more! [QUOTE=Google Dictionary] **crime** **krīm** _noun_ … an action or activity that, although not illegal, is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong. Ex.: “they condemned apartheid as a crime against humanity” [/QUOTE] > [@Bricker](#): > > Gog and Magog? Really? Who writes your material? :smack: If you’re that ignorant why don’t you defecate at Yahoo Answers instead of here. [QUOTE=George W. Bush, as quoted by Jacques Chirac] Jacques, you and I share a common faith. You’re Roman Catholic, I’m Methodist, but we are both Christians committed to the teachings of the Bible. We share one common Lord. \*\*\*Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East. \*\*\* Biblical prophecies are being fulfilled. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a new age begins. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8490 "2016-02-08T16:21:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …A negative, almost certainly, but the question is flawed. A single person is judged by his informed conscience and whether he understood an act to be wrong. Since “the Republican Party” is made up of many persons, some of whom support these laws for very acceptable reasons and some who don’t, it’s not useful to analogize the entire party to a single person. > > I think that composite person would say something like, “I did what everyone else does.” And I think that’s a true statement. Where the problem arises is in deciding just how informed the conscience of the composite person is, and how the multitude of different motives coalesce into a single person’s decision. I stand ready to praise and applaud those Republicans of conscience who would not sign off on this wretched scheme. Indeed, I have even urged you to provide us with their names, that we can heap our approval upon them. It seems you are too busy offering us elementary school level explanations for how our government goes forward. These honest Republicans would be, in my estimation, fully honorable inheritors of Barry Goldwater’s stature, but I have no names. Is this list of worthies too long to post? By their actions, you shall know them. If the Republicans had wanted to put the \*kibosh \*on voter fraud by supplying voter ID easily and conveniently, they could not do it? Its impossible, no such scheme could exist? Several such plans have been offered here, best I can tell, you are not interested, nor is the Party. If the Republican Party had wanted to ensure voter identification without any hint of injustice or partisan advantage, they could have done so. Indeed, they could have had the complete and unwavering support of Dems. They did not, and for a very good reason… They didn’t want to. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8491 "2016-02-08T16:44:34Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No, the evidence of you engaging in willful blindness in order to preserve your argument is sufficient. You’re mistaken. I think the reason you’re mistaken is that you’re confusing a verifiable fact (“Republicans exist who have advanced Voter ID as an electoral strategy”) with a balance of harms (“This fact is sufficient to reject current laws.”) I certainly concede the first. I don’t concede the second, and you cannot claim that the second is a matter of objective fact. So on what specific objective matter do you contend I am willfully blind? > [@](#): > > And yet you do not concede that systematic disenfranchisement efforts continue even today? I guess we need to nail down “systematic.” Obviously there are people who seek to limit the voting of those populations they believe will vote against their party. I don’t agree that qualifies as “systematic.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8492 "2016-02-08T16:57:32Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > I stand ready to praise and applaud those Republicans of conscience who would not sign off on this wretched scheme. But it’s not a wretched scheme. I described the thought processes of some people, who indeed support the scheme for wretched reasons. But there are also people who support the scheme for the valid, neutral reasons such as the ones I have explained countless times in this thread. The scheme itself is not wretched. Supporting the scheme in order to gain political advantage is wretched. > [@](#): > > By their actions, you shall know them. If the Republicans had wanted to put the \*kibosh \*on voter fraud by supplying voter ID easily and conveniently, they could not do it? Its impossible, no such scheme could exist? Several such plans have been offered here, best I can tell, you are not interested, nor is the Party. > > If the Republican Party had wanted to ensure voter identification without any hint of injustice or partisan advantage, they could have done so. Indeed, they could have had the complete and unwavering support of Dems. They did not, and for a very good reason… > > They didn’t want to. Bullshit. It was a Republican legislator who proposed that New Mexico consider the use of fingerprints as Voter ID: utterly free to each person with at least one finger. And it was the leftist Electronic Frontier Foundation that objected, saying that voters should not have to trade their privacy and biological data in order to participate in democracy. Owning a firearm is a constitutional right. In fact, it;s actually mentioned in the Constitution. Find me the honest Democrat who has objected to requiring photo ID (and other more expensive barriers!) before permitting the exercise of that right. There are probably a few. But none of them are you. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8493 "2016-02-08T17:08:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re mistaken. I think the reason you’re mistaken is that you’re confusing a verifiable fact (“Republicans exist who have advanced Voter ID as an electoral strategy”) with a balance of harms (“This fact is sufficient to reject current laws.”) No, you’re mistaken. My position is that the circumstances do not justify the _creation_ of tighter voter ID laws. Your justification for these laws is not only baseless - i.e. you believe the public might lose confidence in the validity of close elections - it represents willful blindness to much larger sources of electoral error, defined as outcomes that do not represent the will of the electorate. That said, legislatures of course have the job of legislating, even if what they’re legislating is useless or even actively harmful. > [@](#): > > I certainly concede the first. I don’t concede the second, and you cannot claim that the second is a matter of objective fact. > > So on what specific objective matter do you contend I am willfully blind? Enhanced voter ID laws are designed to, some members of the Republican Party have publicly acknowledged, give an edge to Republican candidates. You’re not recognizing this as a possible outcome, i.e. you’re implicitly saying those Republicans are engaging in sheer fantasy. I content you are determinedly not recognizing the intended outcome, clinging instead to the tenuous notion that these laws are needed to address a nonexistent problem, which you further insulate yourself from adding a pointless buffer zone: 1. Voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. 2. But _your_ concern is that _public perception_ is that voter fraud is a real problem, therefore it is fair to pass legislation with the goal of _addressing public perception_ rather than voter fraud. There are of course better ways to address concerns about election fairness, based on what we know to be _actual_ problems with how votes are cast and counted, but you absent yourself from having to consider those, in part because legislators aren’t pursuing those options, because legislators don’t benefit from those options. > [@](#): > > I guess we need to nail down “systematic.” Obviously there are people who seek to limit the voting of those populations they believe will vote against their party. > > I don’t agree that qualifies as “systematic.” Are the people pushing for these laws elected officials? If so, they are by definition part of the system, hence their efforts are indeed “systematic”. The more petty your nitpicks, the more confident I become in your loss of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8494 "2016-02-08T17:14:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But it’s not a wretched scheme. > > I described the thought processes of some people, who indeed support the scheme for wretched reasons. > > But there are also people who support the scheme for the valid, neutral reasons such as the ones I have explained countless times in this thread. > > The scheme itself is not wretched. Supporting the scheme in order to gain political advantage is wretched. Well, as noted before in the Texas case the Fifth Panel, even with the Fifth article voided, did not take the Fifth. 🙂 > [@](#): > > **The victory that the challengers did win from the Fifth Circuit panel was that the practical effect of the photo ID law was that it made it harder for minorities and for the poor to obtain the necessary documents with photos to prove their identity.** Such a “discriminatory effect” is outlawed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and it can be proved without showing a deliberate intent to discriminate. Their fig leaves can not hide the conclusion that the new laws end up being discriminatory. The “valid” neutral reasons are just excuses. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8495 "2016-02-08T17:19:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > No, you’re mistaken. My position is that the circumstances do not justify the _creation_ of tighter voter ID laws. Your justification for these laws is not only baseless - i.e. you believe the public might lose confidence in the validity of close elections - it represents willful blindness to much larger sources of electoral error, defined as outcomes that do not represent the will of the electorate. I don’t agree that’s a likely outcome. But I wonder what definition of “the electorate” you’re using in that sentence. Mine? Or yours? > [@](#): > > Enhanced voter ID laws are designed to, some members of the Republican Party have publicly acknowledged, give an edge to Republican candidates. No. Merely because some have acknowledged this does not make it true. In fact, they are designed to add a measure of confidence and non-repudiation to the authentication of the voter. The fact that some Republicans also expect that this will result in an electoral advantage for them does not change the design purpose. > [@](#): > > You’re not recognizing this as a possible outcome, i.e. you’re implicitly saying those Republicans are engaging in sheer fantasy. I content you are determinedly not recognizing the intended outcome, clinging instead to the tenuous notion that these laws are needed to address a nonexistent problem, which you further insulate yourself from adding a pointless buffer zone: > > 1. Voter fraud is a nonexistent problem. > 2. But _your_ concern is that _public perception_ is that voter fraud is a real problem, therefore it is fair to pass legislation with the goal of _addressing public perception_ rather than voter fraud. Yes. Correct. > [@](#): > > There are of course better ways to address concerns about election fairness, based on what we know to be _actual_ problems with how votes are cast and counted, but you absent yourself from having to consider those, in part because legislators aren’t pursuing those options, because legislators don’t benefit from those options. I don’t mind considering other options. What are they, and why haven’t Democrats proposed them? (I assume they have not, since you say that “legislators aren’t pursuing those options.” > [@](#): > > Are the people pushing for these laws elected officials? If so, they are by definition part of the system, hence their efforts are indeed “systematic”. The more petty your nitpicks, the more confident I become in your loss of the argument. That’s not really the impression that the word “systematic” conveys. Indeed, by your proposed definition, there is a systematic effort afoot to make the American public believe that the island of Guam is in fanger oif physically capsizing and sinking into the sea due to the weight of additional armed troops being housed there. This concern was voiced by Rep. Hank Johnson, an elected official and thus part of the system. Of course, that’s absurd. ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8496 "2016-02-08T17:19:36Z")
Has anyone on Bricker’s side tried playing the “you can’t prove that thousands of people are losing their chance to vote, so stop suggesting it” card? I’d just like to know if it was ever juxtaposed with his “the outcome of ultra-close elections” stance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8497 "2016-02-08T17:21:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, as noted before in the Texas case the Fifth Panel, even with the Fifth article voided, did not take the Fifth. 🙂 Credit where credit is due. I grinned. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Such a “discriminatory effect” is outlawed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and it can be proved without showing a deliberate intent to discriminate. > > Their fig leaves can not hide the conclusion that the new laws end up being discriminatory. The “valid” neutral reasons are just excuses. But it cannot be proved, said the Fifth Circuit, by looking back at historical patterns of discrimination as the trial judge did. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8498 "2016-02-08T17:34:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But I wonder what definition of “the electorate” you’re using in that sentence. Mine? Or yours? . . . The difference being? ---
**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:** [February 8, 2016, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8499 "2016-02-08T17:40:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that’s a likely outcome. I wouldn’t expect you to admit if you did. > [@](#): > > But I wonder what definition of “the electorate” you’re using in that sentence. Mine? Or yours? I don’t know what definition you have offered of the term. I don’t believe I’ve ever offered such. Does it matter, or is this another nitpick to stall for time? > [@](#): > > No. Merely because some have acknowledged this does not make it true. In fact, they are designed to add a measure of confidence and non-repudiation to the authentication of the voter. The fact that some Republicans also expect that this will result in an electoral advantage for them does not change the design purpose. If the “design purpose” was as you describe, I’d expect there to be no resistance to the idea of making voter ID easier to get, of setting up more government offices to distribute these IDs, of making as deliberately low-burden on the voters as possible, and also that support for the idea wouldn’t drawn so starkly along party lines. > [@](#): > > What are they, and why haven’t Democrats proposed them? (I assume they have not, since you say that “legislators aren’t pursuing those options.” I’ll admit using “legislators” a tad sloppily - my intent was to say something along the lines of “legislators who are pushing for enhanced voter ID can claim to be doing so in the pursuit of election accuracy, but they are not pursuing other more effective means because those means do not - or are less likely to - give their particular Party a slight edge.” That said, a casual search of “election reform” shows that there are indeed efforts underway. Ohio’s anti-gerrymandering amendment will take effect in 2021, so we’ll see how that goes. California and Oregon now have automatic registration, which could be interesting, and New Jersey would also if Governor Christie hadn’t vetoed it, citing concerns about fraud that I can’t quite see the basis for. > [@](#): > > That’s not really the impression that the word “systematic” conveys. Take all the time you need to adjust your impressions, then. I’m not sure what you think you’re gaining by citing Hank Johnson’s insanity. Had he managed to convert his views into actual legislation restricting travel to Guam, you might have a point instead of yet another stall for time. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2016, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/8500 "2016-02-08T18:01:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Credit where credit is due. I grinned. > But it cannot be proved, said the Fifth Circuit, by looking back at historical patterns of discrimination as the trial judge did. > [@](#): > > the practical effect of the photo ID law was that\*\* it made it harder for minorities and for the poor\*\* to obtain the necessary documents with photos to prove their identity Q.E.D. The point though was that indeed what the supreme court did was to only remove the “pre-crime” fifth article, as the Fifth Circuit showed that that does not mean that the courts will look away when some states are still discriminating against minorities. Whereas their intentions were pure or not. I have to add that this is looking like the relatives that enable alcoholics, they are not willing to see who they are helping. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=424) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=426)