Watching this young lady makes me suspect this is unlikely to work out the way the Republicans hope. At the very least, she is a remarkably articulate 12 year old.
In a post about voodoo spells on people who vote Democrat, Bricker makes the point that we shouldn’t indulge such bullshit beliefs. If someone has the bullshit belief that voter fraud is widespread, why should we give it any more weight than voodoo?
The right to vote is more fundamental to our democracy than majority rule and popular opinion. You can’t let a majority disenfranchise a minority.
Legislative approval and popular support are irrelevant when it comes to voting rights. The courts are the only relevant metric in those cases and the courts have failed miserably in this the case of Posner, have even acknowledged their mistake.
Does democracy mean that a majority can disenfranchise a minority?
Voter ID laws do not need uneven enforcement to create greater burdens on minorities and the poor than a failure to enforce abortion laws against men is needed to create a greater burden on women.
I don’t know what the ID requirements are in all states but driver’s licenses are probably the most commonly used form of voter ID.
Urban blacks in some places (with well developed mass transportation) are more likely than not to have a valid driver’s license.
But even if the percentage is only 30% or 20% why doesn’t it bother you that this law creates a burden for a significantly larger percentage of urban blacks than suburban whites?
You don’t have to be racist to be a Republican, you just have to be tolerant of them. Republicans are all about tolerance.
Why don’t you think that having an informed electorate is a valid reason?
So why didn’t they offer up a “more palatable version” this time around? IIRCl, their counter offer was tort reform. I don’t think the objection to Obamacare was racist. I don’t even think that their objection to every last fucking thing Obama wanted to achieve was racist. I think they used racism to stir up the cretins who would help them oppose every last fucking thing that Obama wanted to achieve.
Bricker, you are like the sarduakar. You exist and thrive in environment that is very hostile to you and you are probably stronger for it but on this one, I see you making excuse after excuse to justify a law that is widely recognized as having disparate impact on minority voting rights.
The laws tries to solve don’t solve the problem of voter fraud by addressing the least common form of voter fraud and so you say it is about voter confidence. Ignorant people may feel more confident about the integrity of the process even though voter ID laws don’t actually accomplish much other than stepping on the voting rights of some minorities and create long lines at the voting booths.
You could say many of the same things about the assault weapons ban. The gun grabbers try to address gun violence by banning the a weapon that is rarely ever used in gun violence. It doesn’t reduce gun violence one bit and you end up stepping on the rights of gun owners. Of course it makes ignorant people feel safer but should we really be driving policy based on what makes ignorant people feel better?
You don’t have to be racist to be Republican, but you do have to be Republican to be racist.
More awesome than Hit Girl!
I’ll wait for her!
Sometimes scarcity or cost creates value where none existed before. A line outside a nightclub might make more people go to the club. Charging people for bottled tap water might make people drink more water and less soda. Making it marginally tougher to vote might create fear of loss that results in one of the highest voter turnouts among minorities in recent history.
This thing might just be backfiring on the Republicans. It doesn’t seem to be having the effect that Republicans were looking for. Its still wrong in principle but it might not actually end up suppressing the vote. It might create some value where none existed before. As one guy told me, “if they want to stop me from voting so bad, maybe my vote makes a difference”
So, when it comes to an actual proposed law (the Clinton-plan alternative, you can POSITIVELY state NO Republicans actually WANTED national health care, they were just willing to accept that version of it instead of the one they were offered.
Then, with regard to voter ID laws, in spite of numerous examples of people who actually voted for these laws openly stating that part of the purpose of the law was to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters, we suddenly need some magical objective number in order for that to matter?
Jesus, Bricker. Listen to yourself. You have gone off the fucking deep end on this issue. I don’t know why this gets under your skin so hard, but damn.
I’m kind of curious if there’s anything an eager civilian can do akin to helping southern blacks in the 1950s and 60s to register. Maybe offer free car services to drive poor voters to the DMV? Collect numbers at the DMV to minimize wait times? Start charities to pay fees?
Especially lately, because the country is so polarized and so many elections are so hard-fought and so many elections are so close.
As I’ve said from the beginning. If people want to vote they will. Someone who can’t be assed to get their free ID in a two or 4 year period isn’t likely to make the effort to struggle down to the voting booth.
You mean that enforcing voter ID actually inspires more confidence that their vote means something and might make them want to vote? Who’d of thunk it?
Not very many. And most of them, their very next thought was “No, wait, that’s stupid.”
Because elevated scrutiny hands power to the unelected bench.
And because there’s nothing about voting that triggers elevated scrutiny.
No. I can say that as a group, Republicans’ actions showed they did not favor national health care. I cannot – and did not – say the words to try to put in my mouth.
No, again, and it would really free up my time if you learn to read.
For approximately the ninety quadrillionth time: the motives of individual legislators are irrelevant if there is a valid, neutral justification for the law. We have no idea who had what idea, but even if we did, it doesn’t matter.
Those are not my original words. The term “valid, neutral justification,” is direct from the Supreme Court. They are the final arbiters of the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like it, too fucking bad for you – your dislike does not allow you to pretend I didn’t say it.
I am not always a fan of unelected judges holding such power. But they do. I accept it, even when I don’t like the result.
But you, and your ilk, seem to accept the Court’s authority when you like it, and hold it illegitimate when you don’t…saying in effect that there’s only one real rule: what you want is the only legitimate outcome.
Why not cut the pretense, and nominate a wise philosopher king to rule over us benignly and absolutely? I bet you have just the guy in mind.
Is he made of straw? Because it looks like you’ve got one ready-made right there.
Neutral in what sense? We have strong and increasing evidence that this law was neutral in neither intent or effect. So at what point does the actual situation on the ground get have an impact on this “valid justification” that can be made up by the judiciary without regard to actual legislative intent.
Why not cut the pretense, and admit you don’t want poor people to vote because they won’t vote the way you want them to? I bet you have just the system in miind.
When did I ever say that? The linked post in the quote doesn’t contain that statement.
Looks like someone’s still hiding behind that fig leaf. “Sure, the law has the effect of keeping minorities, the poor, and the elderly from voting, but as long as there’s a theoretical alternative explanation for it, tough titties! It’s leeeeeeeeegal! Neener neener neener!”
Besides, the common slander that the working poor don’t get ID only because they’re too damn lazy (and sometimes we even hear the word “shiftless” :dubious: ), to pass up a vital day’s income and go to the county seat or wherever, is not only false and insulting but revealing. Even more revealing is the refusal of **Bricker **and cohorts to acknowledge that voting fraud, when it even exists, happens with *absentee *balloting, or to propose even the slightest measure to address that.
If you have to base your argument on lies, it should not be a surprise when you get called on it, no?
Actually, you don’t. You can’t point to any state in which the law has been in effect and show any statistically significant negative effects, can you? Indeed, in at least some cases, the effect has been in the other direction, leading at least some commentators to postulate that the publicity about Republicans trying to “steal votes,” energized the populations supposedly targeted for theft.
But I of course welcome any solid evidence about effect you have to the contrary. Note that “solid evidence” means actual results, not speculation and imagination.
I do! It’s called: Photo ID status quo.
Voting isn’t a fundamental right?
But voter fraud at the polling place could be happening, and therefore we must implement voter ID requirements to prevent the fraud that might be happening even though (apart from a few Republicans “testing” the system) there’s very little evidence that it *is *happening. Because CONFIDENCE.
Also, voter IDs prevent chupacabra attacks, as shown by the low incidence of chupacabra attacks in areas where voter ID requirements have been implemented.