# 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:** 490
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9781 "2016-08-03T01:20:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Until now, I had no idea North Dakota added these restrictions to their previous Voter ID law, which was quite satisfactory as it was, and which will be the one in force now that the new law has been enjoined. Okay, that is fair. Now you know. Do you denounce the law for removing the fail-safe protections? Why do you suppose the law removed them? > [@Bricker](#): > > The judge has no business declaring that a law is “bad,” and in fact he did not. > > The judge is empowered to rule on whether the law is constitutionally infirm, and whether it’s violative of federal law with respect to voting rights. That, he did. You are right. I was imprecise with my wording. What I should have said was, given the findings that the judge made, do you agree that, from a policy perspective, this was a bad law? > [@Bricker](#): > > The ruling under discussion is a preliminary injunction, not a ruling on the evidence. When you list the items for which there was “no evidence presented,” you are making a very safe statement, since there was no trial evidence presented at all. The plaintiffs presented various declarations and affidavits, but the State of North Dakota had no opportunity to cross-examine the declarants as they will in a trial. This ruling simply says that the state is not permitted to enforce the new law until a full trial can be completed. Are you under the impression that Defendants were unable to challenge or refute the evidence that Plaintiffs used to support their motion or were unable to present their own declarations or affidavits in their opposition to the motion? I will concede that they were not able to cross-examine the declarants, but that is not the only method of discrediting the evidence presented by the other side. My understanding of the process is that both sides were given the opportunity to present Point and Authorities in support of their respective position, as well as presenting evidence in support of or in opposition to the respective motions. From my reading of the decision, the defendants presented no evidence in their opposition (order p8-9), nor did they attempt to refute the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs (order p8-9). I know if I were opposing a Request for Injunctive Relief, I would present evidence in my favor or at least cast doubt upon the other side’s evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9782 "2016-08-03T01:56:44Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Okay, that is fair. Now you know. Do you denounce the law for removing the fail-safe protections? Why do you suppose the law removed them? I’d be interested in hearing their reasons – presumably someone got up on the floor of the legislature and say, “We need to pass this bill because of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” What did the bill’s sponsors aver was their motive? > [@](#): > > You are right. I was imprecise with my wording. What I should have said was, given the findings that the judge made, do you agree that, from a policy perspective, this was a bad law? Yes. > [@](#): > > Are you under the impression that Defendants were unable to challenge or refute the evidence that Plaintiffs used to support their motion or were unable to present their own declarations or affidavits in their opposition to the motion? I will concede that they were not able to cross-examine the declarants, but that is not the only method of discrediting the evidence presented by the other side. My understanding of the process is that both sides were given the opportunity to present Point and Authorities in support of their respective position, as well as presenting evidence in support of or in opposition to the respective motions. From my reading of the decision, the defendants presented no evidence in their opposition (order p8-9), nor did they attempt to refute the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs (order p8-9). I know if I were opposing a Request for Injunctive Relief, I would present evidence in my favor or at least cast doubt upon the other side’s evidence. Sure, but for injunctive relief, the plaintiff’s declarations were, in essence, a collection of, “Here’s a person or group unduly burdened.” These cannot be refuted by another declaration, unless that declaration says “I investigated these specific people and they’re lying.” ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9783 "2016-08-03T03:55:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d be interested in hearing their reasons – presumably someone got up on the floor of the legislature and say, “We need to pass this bill because of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” > > What did the bill’s sponsors aver was their motive? The Native Americans were esteeming their vote too lightly? ---
**Author:** ![rooostra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d07c76/32.png) [@rooostra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rooostra)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9784 "2016-08-03T04:21:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d be interested in hearing their reasons – presumably someone got up on the floor of the legislature and say, “We need to pass this bill because of \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.” > > What did the bill’s sponsors aver was their motive? I don’t know what the sponsors’ claimed motive was and I’m not sure I care. One of my main practice areas is Federal Housing Discrimination. The laws have changed quite a bit since the sixties to reflect the fact that most landlords who discriminate illegally do not overtly state their motives any more (not all, however, you might be surprised how many will still overtly state "I am not renting to you because you are black/latino/gay/unmarried/have kids etc.). I think we can both agree that politicians of all stripes do not always share the actual motives of why they take particular actions. > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Good. Perhaps you should denounce the bill, even if the bill’s supporters used neutral wording in its support. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, but for injunctive relief, the plaintiff’s declarations were, in essence, a collection of, “Here’s a person or group unduly burdened.” These cannot be refuted by another declaration, unless that declaration says “I investigated these specific people and they’re lying.” Except there weren’t just plaintiffs’ declarations. Pages 7-20 of the decision go into quite a bit of detail about how the judge weighed the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented declarations, affidavits, surveys, studies, and data. And more to the point, defendants didn’t even CHALLENGE the statements, much less refute them. The bulk of the decision is an exhaustive review of the evidence presented. The judge then spends a number of pages (p20-23) distinguishing this case from Crawford, as far as the evidence presented, as well as denying the Defendants reliance on Scalia’s reasoning in the concurrence rather than the standard laid out in Stevens’ plurality decision. He also notes that the Defendants provide no evidence supporting their own claims regarding the State of North Dakota’s interest in preventing a fail-safe provisions from being implemented. I encourage you to read the full decision. The judge put a lot of work into it and was quite thorough in documenting his reasoning for making the decision that he made. This was no rote decision based on a surface reading of the complaint. The judge did a lot of heavy lifting as far as analysis goes and I suspect the ultimate decision in the case will read similarly. I could be wrong. Perhaps the State was just sandbagging by withholding its good evidence and letting the Plaintiffs win injunctive relief in order to lull them into a false sense of security after which it will blindside them with arguments at trial. We shall see. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9785 "2016-08-03T05:30:25Z")
> [@](#): > > …Trump pointed to several court cases nationwide in which restrictive laws requiring voters to show identification have been thrown out. He said those decisions open the door to fraud in November. > > “If the election is rigged, I would not be surprised,” he told The Washington Post in an interview Tuesday afternoon. “The voter ID situation has turned out to be a very unfair development. We may have people vote 10 times.”… [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-trump-a-new-rigged-system-the-election-itself/2016/08/02/d9fb33b0-58c4-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/for-trump-a-new-rigged-system-the-election-itself/2016/08/02/d9fb33b0-58c4-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html) The outline of the conspiracy, as through a glass darkly, like the outlines of the mountain the pilot glimpses through the clouds…just a moment too late… Hispanic Latinos hate Trump because he opposes open borders with amnesty and instant citizenship. Now that the voter id laws have been neutralized, the plan to crush Trump can go forward, Operation _Pendejo_. Buses rented, tents bought, CASA/ACORN revolutionary cadres trained and briefed. Gotta wonder? How many Trump infected morans actually think this kind of stuff is real? Steal an election by massive, covert voter fraud? _In person_ voter fraud?! How many Republicans already believed it before Trump even arrived? Is it possible that they really think this way, maybe even thought they were thwarting a covert conspiracy of national proportions? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9786 "2016-08-03T06:56:56Z")
> [@OffByOne](#): > > That’s true only because 200 years ago, we didn’t have any minority voters, just male land owners. Requiring registration before the election, having ID, voting in your proper polling place, and doing so on election day is something only male landowners can accomplish? If that’s true, it’s easy to understand why male landowners were dominant. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9787 "2016-08-03T07:03:42Z")
If those simple requirements are onerous, then it makes you wonder how people ever manage to accomplish anything besides voting. If you can’t do those things you can’t drive, you can’t work, basically you would need a caregiver if you cannot do those things. Democrats prove their political motives simply by the fact that they do not hesitate to put obstacles in the place of people doing literally ANYTHING else, but have decided that even requiring registration is now too onerous a requirement for voting. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2016, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9788 "2016-08-03T08:17:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, but for injunctive relief, the plaintiff’s declarations were, in essence, a collection of, “Here’s a person or group unduly burdened.” These cannot be refuted by another declaration, unless that declaration says “I investigated these specific people and they’re lying.” Is presenting evidence of lying the only possible defense one could use? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9789 "2016-08-03T09:23:04Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Requiring registration before the election, having ID, voting in your proper polling place, and doing so on election day is something only male landowners can accomplish? > > If that’s true, it’s easy to understand why male landowners were dominant. Are… are you high? Because this isn’t even moving the goalposts; this is trying to kick the ball into the snackbar. It doesn’t remotely follow from anything said before. > [@adaher](#): > > If those simple requirements are onerous, then it makes you wonder how people ever manage to accomplish anything besides voting. If you can’t do those things you can’t drive, you can’t work, basically you would need a caregiver if you cannot do those things. Gosh, if only we’d had the forethought to have previously extensively debunked the “people without ID aren’t trying hard enough” argument. Why, we could have presented multiple instances of legitimate hardships faced by voters attempting to obtain one of the suspiciously-narrowly-defined pool of acceptable IDs. We could even have mentioned notable court cases where such obstacles were specifically referenced. Hang on a minute - let me just pop into my time machine here and…okay, all done. I’ve gone back in time and ensured that all those things have been included in this thread. You can now go back and read them. You’re welcome. > [@](#): > > Democrats prove their political motives simply by the fact that they do not hesitate to put obstacles in the place of people doing literally ANYTHING else, but have decided that even requiring registration is now too onerous a requirement for voting. Cite that the Democrats think registration is too onerous a requirement for voting? You, however, have amply proved your political motives by being just hunky-dory with people being hampered from exercising a fundamental Constitutional right. Good luck claiming the moral high ground from the hole you’ve dug yourself into. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9790 "2016-08-03T10:18:18Z")
Hillary Clinton wants automatic registration of all voters. and as I pointed out, the NC decision goes way beyond ID, now claiming that not having early voting, not having same day registration, and requiring people to actually vote in their precinct somehow violates both VRA and equal protection. I notice no one has wanted to touch my question about voting in NC even though I’m a FL resident. Because you all know that the only thing keeping me from doing it is the honor system. Except this court has basically said it’s wrong to even have residency laws. It is now a civil rights issue that I be allowed to cast my vote wherever I wish. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9791 "2016-08-03T10:54:31Z")
You actually think you have a point there, don’t you? \*So \*precious … ---
**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:** [August 3, 2016, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9792 "2016-08-03T11:04:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hillary Clinton wants automatic registration of all voters. > > and as I pointed out, the NC decision goes way beyond ID, now claiming that not having early voting, not having same day registration, and requiring people to actually vote in their precinct somehow violates both VRA and equal protection. > > I notice no one has wanted to touch my question about voting in NC even though I’m a FL resident. Because you all know that the only thing keeping me from doing it is the honor system. Except this court has basically said it’s wrong to even have residency laws. It is now a civil rights issue that I be allowed to cast my vote wherever I wish. I notice that you keep ignoring that the NC legislators were motivated by making it harder for black people to vote. Have you lost your decency? Why are you ignoring this? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9793 "2016-08-03T12:00:55Z")
I’m not ignoring it, I just wasn’t aware that bad motives could annul rational laws. If we can find Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting, does that mean we can get laws they passed to make that easier struck down? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9794 "2016-08-03T12:01:13Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Is presenting evidence of lying the only possible defense one could use? Yes, or possibly no. It depends. In this case at this juncture at this time, no, but other avenues are equally foreclosed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9795 "2016-08-03T12:10:57Z")
> [@rooostra](#): > > Good. Perhaps you should denounce the bill, even if the bill’s supporters used neutral wording in its support. Perhaps I shouldn’t denounce anything I haven’t made an effort to investigate. > [@](#): > > This was no rote decision based on a surface reading of the complaint. The judge did a lot of heavy lifting as far as analysis goes and I suspect the ultimate decision in the case will read similarly. I could be wrong. Perhaps the State was just sandbagging by withholding its good evidence and letting the Plaintiffs win injunctive relief in order to lull them into a false sense of security after which it will blindside them with arguments at trial. We shall see. In several previous trials in other parts of the country, similarly situated plaintiffs have been unable to substantiate under cross-examination their supposed difficulties. Admittedly those cases involved less strict versions of the concept, and admittedly I cannot imagine a strong justification for removing the “affidavit in lieu of” provisions, so I am willing to wait for a trial, with the problematic provisions enjoined in the interim. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9796 "2016-08-03T12:16:29Z")
I love, by the way, that for four years I have defended the existence of Voter ID laws by, inter alia, repeatedly citing a favorable Supreme Court decision, a full and final decision on the merits. And the opposition here has brayed and champed about the difference between “moral” and “legal,” and inveighed against the reliance on mere Supreme Court precedent. Now comes a preliminary injunction, in advance of a trial, issued by the lowest court in the federal system of general jurisdiction, and suddenly it is as if Moses handed down the injunction from Sinai. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9797 "2016-08-03T12:48:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Hillary Clinton wants automatic registration of all voters. Right. So wanting to facilitate voter registration is the same thing as thinking “requiring registration is too onerous for voting”. Registration is still “required”. It’s right there in the term “automatic registration”. I realize that you live in Bizarro World but “universal registration” is the opposite of “not requiring registration”. > [@](#): > > and as I pointed out, the NC decision goes way beyond ID, now claiming that not having early voting, not having same day registration, and requiring people to actually vote in their precinct somehow violates both VRA and equal protection. And as we pointed out, it’s not that having them is a right, it’s that removing them with discriminatory intent is wrong. > [@](#): > > I notice no one has wanted to touch my question about voting in NC even though I’m a FL resident. Because you all know that the only thing keeping me from doing it is the honor system. Except this court has basically said it’s wrong to even have residency laws. It is now a civil rights issue that I be allowed to cast my vote wherever I wish. It really isn’t, and your inability to understand basic facts doesn’t make it so. > [@adaher](#): > > I’m not ignoring it, I just wasn’t aware that bad motives could annul rational laws. Clearly you’re unaware of the reason for the VRA in the first place. Plenty of “rational laws” were passed for malign purposes. > [@](#): > > If we can find Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting, does that mean we can get laws they passed to make that easier struck down? I can’t even begin to imagine what you’re going to trot out as “Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting” but given your track record it should be entertaining. > [@Bricker](#): > > I love, by the way, that for four years I have defended the existence of Voter ID laws by, inter alia, repeatedly citing a favorable Supreme Court decision, a full and final decision on the merits. And the opposition here has brayed and champed about the difference between “moral” and “legal,” and inveighed against the reliance on mere Supreme Court precedent. > > Now comes a preliminary injunction, in advance of a trial, issued by the lowest court in the federal system of general jurisdiction, and suddenly it is as if Moses handed down the injunction from Sinai. And I love how, having been forced to abandon the “moral” argument early on to focus on the “legal”, once the “legal” argument also started to crumble you declared a moral victory. Keep pounding that table, dude. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2016, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9798 "2016-08-03T12:51:50Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I’m not ignoring it, I just wasn’t aware that bad motives could annul rational laws. If we can find Democrats on record as wanting to facilitate illegals voting, does that mean we can get laws they passed to make that easier struck down? I’m not talking about annulling laws – I’m asking about your personal feelings. Does this surprise you? Does it anger you? Are you okay with it, or mildly annoyed, or outraged? This is an aspect of the continuing significance of white supremacism in America, IMO, and its remaining significance within the Republican party. Do you accept this, or disagree? Are the NC legislators complete outliers, or is there still a significant remnant in the party that wants to disenfranchise black people? I’m trying to wrap my head around how people that I assume are good and decent (like you and **Bricker** ) interpret and react to a significant chunk of their party supporting and advocating for white supremacist policies. ---
**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:** [August 3, 2016, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9799 "2016-08-03T12:55:39Z")
I’ll quote these excellent posts by **Martin Hyde** that answer my question from his point of view, and I’m wondering if other decent Republican leaners like **Bricker** and **adaher** agree: > [@Trump could win the election in a nowcast by FiveThirtyEight](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-could-win-the-election-in-a-nowcast-by-fivethirtyeight/760846/101): > > The vast majority of Trump’s supporters are angry white nationalists whose lives aren’t all that great and they look to Trump to right those wrongs. He cannot, and likely would not even significantly try in office, this core of supporters view anything he says as ‘sticking it to the man’, that has allowed black liberation, Hispanic immigration and other things they blame for the collapse of the “white man.” > > This isn’t something easy for me, a life long Republican, to say–but the reality is the GOP is no longer a functioning political party. The White Nationalists we have tolerated to win elections have taken over the party, only a purging fire can restore it. > > Clinton’s task is to make sure the “middling” voters who might vote Trump but aren’t his core supporters, recognize how inherently unfit for the Presidency he is and vote for her as the only remaining “competent candidate of a rational America.” > [@Trump could win the election in a nowcast by FiveThirtyEight](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-could-win-the-election-in-a-nowcast-by-fivethirtyeight/760846/119): > > Where has the GOP’s electoral base been for the last 40 years? It’s been the Deep South. When did that happen? It happened when Goldwater came out against Civil Rights and Johnson came out for it. Before that, blacks somewhat split between the two parties. FDR had started to draw lots of black voters during the Depression, since many were willing to cross over from their traditional support for the “party of Lincoln”, especially outside the old south, due to his progressive economic policies. > > Goldwater made a stand against the Civil Rights Act based on small-government, small-c conservative principles. Many then and to this day accused Goldwater of being a racist–a claim I don’t support, I don’t think his beliefs were insincere, I think he was genuinely opposed to what he saw as an overstep in Federal authority. He supported civil rights, but on a state by state level in a way that didn’t violate the traditional laissez-faire approach from the Federal government in terms of business regulation. Now, I disagree with Goldwater, personally, as I think the approach we took was absolutely necessary. > > Since that time we (I say this as a Republican) gained a massive number of racist, hateful white voters. We’ve accepted their presence with a few conceits: > > 1. Real Republicans are Republicans for small-c conservative principles, pro-business, pro-growth policies, free trade, a focus on free markets etc. We are not against civil rights. > > 2. If racists in the South happen to vote for our economic agenda because they view it as being against the Democratic welfare state, which they view as primarily benefiting blacks, it’s unfortunate that their thinking is informed in this way, but we’ll happily take their votes. > > The problem is this has proven to be a devil’s bargain. We didn’t just get their votes, we’ve also had to accept their way of thinking. The party I’ve been a member of my entire life is now _primarily_ represented by what I’m calling the White Nationalist wing, these are the huge number of blue collar Southern whites who dislike blacks, and view the Federal government as a vehicle that taxes them and gives their money to “undeserving blacks” who are lazy welfare leaches. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2016, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943/9800 "2016-08-03T13:04:18Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll quote these excellent posts by **Martin Hyde** that answer my question from his point of view, and I’m wondering if other decent Republican leaners like **Bricker** and **adaher** agree: I have already announced my intention to vote for Secretary Clinton. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=489) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-pit-the-id-demanding-gop-vote-suppressors-part-1/624943.md?page=491)