Aw, gee. I think this is my third official Bricker-Pat-on-the-HeadTM for acknowledging being wrong because people of my ilk never admit to being wrong.
You’re just a fucking douchebag. I don’t suppose it makes sense to ask if you see how blindly partisan you are, fuckwit. Just don’t imagine, again, that there are all manner of cockroaches down there with you. It’s pretty much just you (and your ilk).
One of the great attractions of this board is the use of the word “ilk”. I literally have never heard it in real live conversation.
I can cite dozens of times you were wrong and never copped to it. Several in this very thread.
Pro tip: I’m not wrong because you decree it so, or when I dismember liberal orthodoxy.
I’m wrong when I make a misstatement of fact.
Maybe you should check post 4841, 4842, and before you argue that those were simply passive observations as opposed to an active request for anything, consider that they led to this:
Don’t worry, though! Being liberal on the SDMB means never having to say you’re sorry.
Far too confining for one as clever as yourself. You aren’t simply wrong on the facts, you can even misinterpret the facts that you are wrong about! A dab of semantic shading over here, a bit of insinuation over there… In the words of St. Robert of Hibbing, a man who tries to hide what he don’t know to begin with.
Bold words for a guy with no cites, and a pathological fear of admitting his own error.
Does “undue burden” also vary based on the goals the law is trying to achieve? Does it scale?
It seems a bit odd to say “ok, well, I recognize that this will cause an average of 30 minutes of delay and $15 of cost for Democratic voters and not Republican voters, but I previously set my ‘undue burden’ mark at 45 minutes of delay and $20 of cost, and this doesn’t meet that mark”, without at all factoring what the purpose of the law is even trying to accomplish.
In many areas of law, the more you want to restrict someone’s rights, the more of a justification you need to have. Should that not be the case for voting rights as well? (I’m not asking if it IS legally that way, I’m asking if it SHOULD). And if there were such a standard, do you agree that your desire for greater voter confidence (which only applies to close elections, and only addresses a tiny fraction of the reasons that voter confidence might be shaken, and when you come down to it voter unconfidence clearly isn’t a national crisis given that we survived 2000) would be kind of low on the totem pole as far as justifications-for-voting-access-restrictions go?
Also, think back to the example a few pages back of an elderly lady who was having all sorts of trouble getting registered because she was old and had never had her birth certificate (or whatever the precise details were). (Part of the problem with this thread having so much crap in it is that it’s hard to just look backwards a bit and find her). She was eventually able to get registered, but went through a LOT of hassle. Granted, that level of hassle was probably more than average. But does that level of hassle meet your definition of “undue burden”?
One final comment about burden… there’s both an average and a worst case. A particular law might affect 1000 people, 997 of whom have to wait in line 15 minutes at the DMV, and 3 of whom have to spend months hassling various elections-and-record-officials and get the local media involved, etc. How do you evaluate something like that?
Also, please respond to post 4933 when you get a chance… you’ve brought up this voodoo example a bunch of times and I’d like to actually explore it.
PS, since you’ve on several occasions this thread asked me why I didn’t call out various liberal posters for various things… you’ll notice that I’m completely ignoring all the argle bargle that’s currently going on between you and Elucidator and Bryan Ekers and so forth. Does that mean that I’m tacitly supporting what they’re saying, because I’m NOT leaping in to disagree with them? It does not. It just means that making the posts I already make in this thread takes up enough of my time and energy that I don’t have sufficient time or energy or caring to also read everything else that is going on and double check everyone’s claims about what happened 1000 posts ago, and so forth. If one of them tossed out an UTTERLY CLEARLY FACTUALLY FALSE statement about you I might see it while glancing by, and if so I might disagree (or vice versa if you did the opposite). But I might not. My lack of posting implies NOTHING about my agreement or disagreement with what they or you are saying.
Huh, arguably I was asking for a summary in 4840, though at the time I think I was just humouring Bricker after he wrote up a summary on his own initiative and asked for my opinion of it, then revised it and asked again, trying to suss out something or other.
Anyway, I (heh) summarized my feelings about summaries in 4872. If Bricker thinks he deserves a pass because he later “clarified” his “liberals need the felon vote” comment, then I feel okay with being unconcerned about this picayune matter, on which I have no intention of further commenting because it’s simply too stupid.
Regarding the voodoo priestess analogy, I suggest a more realistic (and probably verifiably historical) situation in which, say, a Catholic priest in a particular congregation delivers numerous sermons in the weeks leading up to a vote in which he clearly encourages parishioners to vote a particular way, describing the other side of the issue as rife with hell-bound sinners and Satan worshipers and whatnot. Perhaps he even encourages them to boycott the vote entirely. I don’t know if Charles Coughlin had a particular church (and I’m somewhat dismayed to learn he was Canadian) but he comes to mind as an example of a politically outspoken priest and I don’t expect he was the only one.
So let’s say there is a noticeable effect on voter turnout. Aside from some possible tax issues that might affect a church that has become politically active and determinedly influential, I can’t say I see any reason for legal action. Thing is, the parishioners don’t have to go to that church, they don’t have to listen to those sermons, they don’t have to let themselves be influenced by them. This degree of voluntary interaction does not apply when one needs a government-issued ID card to cast a vote. One is going to have to interact with at least one government employee, one might have to cough up certain documents at the government employee’s request, one might have to invest multiple hours on the process, and one might not be able to do so. The situations are not analogous.
“Argle-bargle”! Have a care, sir! Texans are known for our calm and genial demeanor, but there are limits!
As a suggestion, since the critical issue as I have gathered is not that requiring voter ID is a bad thing in and of itself, but rather that there are legitimate concerns that the implementation of how the IDs are distributed has the potential for systematic and selective difficulty, i.e. we’re going to require that everyone have this ID, but some groups known to lean in a particular political direction are going to have more trouble acquiring it.
Proposed: Everyone who meets the following conditions gets a basic nonphoto ID (with a permanent 12-digit voter ID number assigned to you for life) mailed to them free of charge:
Anyone who wants to vote has to bring that ID card, along with a supporting piece of identification from a lengthy list of acceptable documents - driver’s licence, passport, university student card, fishing license, Medicare/Medicaid card, a recent utility bill with your name and address on it…
The voter ID numbers are managed by the Federal government and issued to the states in blocks, like Social Security numbers, i.e. New York State gets all numbers starting with AA. California gets AB, Texas gets AC, etc. and the states can subdivide their allocation as they see fit, but everyone gets a number.
Over time, voters who renew their driver’s licenses can trade in their photo-less voter ID cards for ones with photos, namely the same photos they have taken for the renewed driver’s licenses, the cards supplied free of charge wherever driver’s licenses are issued. Having a voter ID with a photo means you no longer need the second supporting identifying document.
Upon felony conviction in a state where that involves loss of franchise, the convicted must immediately surrender his or her voter ID card and his or her voter ID number is permanently marked as invalid. Upon the probate of a deceased person’s will, their card must be returned to the appropriate state agency.
There are minor additional details to be worked out, but the gist is that everybody who was eligible to vote in the last election gets a card (and number) automatically. 18 year-olds and recent immigrants who are registering to vote for the first time get a card (and number) automatically. The Federal government maintains the database of voter names and ID numbers, updates them as new voters join the system, old voters die off, and reports of felony convictions come in.
Suggestions?
The Constitution matters.
My opinion…and yours…don’t.
Why do you even ask this kind of question? Are you seriously this mentally ill?
There was something someone said here about wanting to be recognized as king…
Again to remind you of what you said:
Would you say the US Supreme Court gets to decide what the Constitution means?
Because they don’t agree with you. They say that even if a somewhat heavier burden is placed on a limited number of persons, even persons of only one class, as long as the burden is not excessive, it is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause.
So…were you talking about your opinion of what the Equal Protection Clause should mean in your world, or were you trying to discuss what it actually means as laid out by the Supreme Court?
I ask because what you said is wrong as a matter of law, so I though perhaps you were just announcing what the clause means in Trinopus Pretend Land.
Sounds fine. There’s all kinds of ways to make this sort of thing work well without damaging anything. They didn’t want to. It was never that it was difficult or complicated, they just didn’t want to.
Beyond voter id, I got bigger fish to fry when it comes to voter equality. I see no good reason that one voter should have to wait for hours to vote and another does not. Maybe it was just a coincidence that the less economically blessed districts are the ones where people wait the longest, but it has come to be preserved by both apathy and intent.
Three guesses who doesn’t like the idea of polling place equality, and the first two don’t count. If voting all across the country were easy, convenient, and seldom required more than half an hour’s hassle, a lot more of the less desirable citizenry would vote, and the Pubbies would get creamed. I know it and they know it.
If any real movement in that direction evolves (From my lips to the Ears…), it will be entertaining as hell watching them dig up some plausible excuse to oppose it. And you can bet your Mom’s last dollar, they will.
I agree to a point, in that although the Republicans are now mostly the ones pushing the issue with obvious self-serving goals, the Democrats would do it to if they could and historically have certainly pursued similar schemes.
Overall, I just think it’s a mistake to let elected officials decide who gets to elect them.
No mailing address?
Loss of card?
Well, the mailing address can be on the voter ID card. If a voter moves, updating their location can involve updating the card, trading it in one-for-one at no charge.
Or keep the card without an address, but then you’ll need a database of voters and their updated addresses and venues. A centralized database is pretty much mandatory, I have to figure, using the registration records of the previous election as a base.
Loss of card… well… then a re-issue is in order but the voter will have to establish identity. I realize that could put us back in the same mess, where the poor or elderly might have problems, but what can you do?
An afterthought occurs - if the whole point of voter ID (well, one of the main points) is to keep disenfranchised felons from voting, then there would have to be a specific voter ID card, no? Conventional identification like driver’s licenses and passports don’t list felony conviction status, I believe. Did anyone have a plan for how these cards would be distributed and tracked and (in the case of felony conviction) forfeited?
For that matter, since the states vary in whether or not felons can vote, does a person have to get a new card every time they move to a new state?
Voter ID laws have been struck down in Texas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. That was what I was referring to.
Lesser Federal Courts also get to decide what the Constitution says.