Even if were to assume that each and every one of these reports are entirely accurate, some of our most populous states are on that list. Overlooking, of course, our repeated corrections that voter registration fraud is a whole different kettle of piranha. Setting that aside, that you appear to have no idea what we are talking about, we still have a vanishingly small number here.
Its like if you were in one of those domed football stadiums, a butterfly farts and you start complaining of the smell…
It has been repeatedly stated that unless fraud is more than those who would be inconvenienced then voter ID shouldn’t be implemented. And as the number of those who may be inconvenienced is 10% of the population, then there is no way that fraud will be that high. Thus, in your mind, there will never be a case for voter ID even if there is a national ID system in place. There will always be people who don’t have an ID and it will likely be more people than the demonstrated amount of fraud.
Why is this even part of the discussion anymore when both sides are so far apart?
Side A: It is better that someone doesn’t get to vote than that someone who shouldn’t be allowed to does.
Side B: It is better that someone gets to vote even if that means that someone who shouldn’t be allowed to does.
How do you cross the bridge between these two camps?
First, by representing them both accurately and fairly. The “sides” you describe exist only in your fantasies. Here’s a hint: The “someone” on one side doesn’t actually exist, and the “someone” on the other side is rather extensive in number, as this discussion should have explained to you.
Once you have fixed your conceptual problem there, since you ask, the tiebreaker is “Which approach is better for strengthening and broadening democracy?”
Speaking of living in a fantasy world. Given the number of people who support voter ID and the number of countries who have it, I can make a pretty accurate leap and say most people agree with Side A.
But I’m willing to learn. Why do you think that there us such a gap here? Why does one side think that ID laws are good and the other think they are bad? From the arguments put forth in this thread, it looks like what I’ve suggested is the closest to the truth. I believe that the Republicans are doing this for their own purposes, but that is just noise and fundamentally most people who support voter ID do so for other reasons.
Side A, of course. People don’t have confidence in democracy if they don’t feel that their vote actually counts or be nullified by those who shouldn’t be voting. Which is why most countries have this or similar requirement.
Which goes to my point. The sides are so far apart that it is impossible to agree.
Repetition number 156: Not about the validity of voter id. About using that as an excuse to make voting more difficult for some citizens, as a means to a political advantage.
Repetition number 157: Not about the validity of voter id. About using that as an excuse to make voting more difficult for some citizens, as a means to a political advantage.
Repetition number 158: Not about the validity of voter id. About using that as an excuse to make voting more difficult for some citizens, as a means to a political advantage.
Federal court denies Texas a declaratory judgement that their Voter ID law meets Section 5’s standards. The DoJ already declined to pre-clear the law, and court has not found enough evidence to overturn DoJ’s decision.
The law was never in place, because Texas is covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rightd Act, which places the burden on Texas to prove it’s proposed law won’t have a discriminatory effect on minorities. They failed to do so.
I am not sure this opinion will survive. It came from Dave Tatel, a Clinton appointee who founded the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and was a director of the office of civil rights in HUD; and Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee who was the lead plaintiff in the 90s in a racial discrimination case against the Maryland State Police – the case that made “driving while black” a recognizable phrase. In both these jurists, I think there’s a willingness to view minority voting through a slightly different lens than the Supreme Court does.
But unless and until the Supreme Court takes a look, then sure enough, Texas can’t impose its voter ID law.
That is a standard for preclearing the DOJ requirements. Nothing says tose requirements are necessary for a valid ID law, merely that it cannot be precleared.
One factor often ignored is that not all ID-challenged voters will be treated equally:
A voter whose ballot is made provisional because poor transportation interfered with getting ID must demonstrate good transportation to answer the challenge that his transportation wasn’t poor. :smack: And that’s only if the voter is challenged. Does anyone think challenges will be applied equally?
(BTW, the article links to a complete court transcript. But can anyone explain why Scribd doc is the format for such a thing?)
Who is going to be doing all of this “challenging”? People who believe in voter fraud, or people who don’t? People who want to exploit the myth of voter fraud, or people who don’t?
Since you did read the link, Brickwit, do you care to comment on it rather than my characterization of it? I’m not asking for an intelligent comment, an intelligible one will do.
To address your “point”: The difference between the assholes on your team and decent humans, is that we humans believe in the garbage you assholes pretend to preach: Equality Under the Law.
In precincts dominated by decent officials, ID laws will be applied equally. In precincts dominated by the assholes you support, you can bet your filthy underwear there will be incidents equivalent to
(I’ve misworded this to show the true feelings behind the dainty polite diction of precinct officials, and to make the point clear.)
I’m not necessarily accusing you of racism, Brickwit. I think it’s just barely possible that you are so stupid and badly informed that you don’t even grasp that your team is based on hypocrisy and racism.
But, yeah, you’re right about one thing: The link I gave didn’t fully develop the theme of unequal treatment. But hints of it were clearly visible to anyone with a 100+ IQ.
Virginia had its voter ID law pre-cleared a little while ago. It permits the use of utility bills, social security cards, bank statements and birth certificates.
Rereading my post, I can see that I’ve been driven past exasperation by the Brick. I apologize to anyone (except him) that I’ve offended. The Brick is the only Doper I refuse to exchange posts with outside of the BBQ Pit.
What is so infuriating about the asshole is how disingenuous he is. That’s plainly visible in this thread.
I detest pretended stupidity much more than real stupidity. Sure, in a sense Bricker isn’t so special: One could end up in any drunk tank in West Texas and be likely to find a frothing-at-the-mouth looney with ideas almost as stupid as Bricker’s ideas. The difference is that the drunk looney knows no better: he’s a moron.
Bricker is (or at least was) smart enough to graduate from law school. Yet look at the filth and gibberish he posts. Maybe you’re a decent human being, Brick, with progressive ideas, and are laughing at gullible Dopers who fall for your claptrap. If so, Kudos! If not, I just pity you.
