I Pit the ID-demanding GOP vote-suppressors (Part 1)

[Bricker]

@Trinopus

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.

What lesser federal court agrees with you?

The Texas law was overturned bya federal court, yes, but the Supreme Court overruled that lesser court by deciding Shelby County.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

What lesser federal court agrees with you?

This one:

A federal judge struck down a Wisconsin voter ID law as unconstitutional because it imposed an unfair burden on the poor and minorities, a move that could set a precedent for other voting rights cases to be decided this election year.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

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.

@Trinopus

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.

@Bricker

What lesser federal court agrees with you?

@Fear_Itself

This one:

That judge didn’t decide a thing about the Equal Protection clause.

Did he?

@Frank v. Walker

Before proceeding, I note that I am only addressing two of the plaintiffs’ claims—the Frank plaintiffs’ claim that Act 23 places an unjustified burden on the right to vote and the claim of both the Frank and LULAC plaintiffs that Act 23 violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I do not address the Frank plaintiffs’ remaining claims, which are all constitutional claims.

So what the hell are you talking about? Where did that federal judge agree with the Equal Protection Clause claim made by Trinopus?

[Bryan_Ekers]

So, any thoughts on ID implementation, Bricker?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

So, any thoughts on ID implementation, Bricker?

As in your post 4971?

Yes, I like it. I am not wild about the immediate non-photo nature, but it’s the nature of compromise that I not like every aspect of a compromise. I’d like to see some sort of end time past which the photo must be there.

Or the use of another biometric, like a fingerprint.

But I like the idea.

[Bryan_Ekers]

So should the card be federal in nature so that it doesn’t matter if you move from state to state, or can it be state-level but readily transferable, i.e. “I’m John Smith, voter ID #AA458929525, just moved from New York here to California. Will my New York-issued voter card suffice for California voting, or do I need to trade it in for a California-issued card, and if so can I keep my AA voter ID number or will California have to issue me an AB number and have my AA number canceled?”

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

So should the card be federal in nature so that it doesn’t matter if you move from state to state, or can it be state-level but readily transferable, i.e. “I’m John Smith, voter ID #AA458929525, just moved from New York here to California. Will my New York-issued voter card suffice for California voting, or do I need to trade it in for a California-issued card, and if so can I keep my AA voter ID number or will California have to issue me an AB number and have my AA number canceled?”

Like Social Security numbers: they use state-specific prefixes but transfer anywhere.

[elucidator]

AAAIIIeeeee! Big Federal Gummint coming to take your identity! Grab your muskox, Patriots! Muskrats! No, wait…

Muskets, that’s it, grab your muskets!

[Bryan_Ekers]

How much resistance, if any, do you think might attach to a federal voter database, as would I guess have to exist to keep track of these numbers, especially as Americans move around?

On a semi-related note, what happens if a person with a felony conviction moves from a state with no felony disenfranchisement to a state that has felony disenfranchisement? Does he have to inform his new state? Does his voter ID number get “suspended” as long as he lives there? I’m not actually sure how such things work currently.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

How much resistance, if any, do you think might attach to a federal voter database, as would I guess have to exist to keep track of these numbers, especially as Americans move around?

On a semi-related note, what happens if a person with a felony conviction moves from a state with no felony disenfranchisement to a state that has felony disenfranchisement? Does he have to inform his new state? Does his voter ID number get “suspended” as long as he lives there? I’m not actually sure how such things work currently.

Right now, each state maintains a completely separate voter registration system. When a person moves to a new state, he must register anew, and as part of the registration the new state may ask him about felony convictions if those are disqualifiers.

The same model would work here: a felony conviction simply appears as a flag on the voter’s database record, and each state would process that flag consistent with their own rules.

How much resistance? I suspect the far right would have some heartburn with it – massive government takeover leading to One World Government kinda concerns…and I suspect the far left would have some heartburn, although they could probably be mollified by being shown detailed implementation plans. Presented correctly, i suspect that the majority of the country would be fine with it.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Is showing the card enough or does the voter ID number have to be recorded at the polling station? If so, the card will need a bar code or a QR code or something that can be scanned electronically, because I have serious doubts that poll workers will be able to accurately and legibly copy down a nine-to-twelve digit number for every voter.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Is showing the card enough or does the voter ID number have to be recorded at the polling station? If so, the card will need a bar code or a QR code or something that can be scanned electronically, because I have serious doubts that poll workers will be able to accurately and legibly copy down a nine-to-twelve digit number for every voter.

The poll worker has a big book. It has the name, address, and the nine-twelve digit number of every voter registered in that precinct. All the poll worker has to do is look at the card, look up the voter, and confirm the numbers match.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Could we speed up the process, have the voter just swipe or scan his card?

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Could we speed up the process, have the voter just swipe or scan his card?

Assuming the jurisdiction can pay for it – sure.

Here’s a thought. I don’t have an opinion yet one way or the other, but for your perusal: video surveillance.

@Eugene Volokh in the Washington Post

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed an ordinance that would compel all gun dealers to video-record sales (“to discourage traffickers and buyers who use false identification”). Presumably the video recordings would have to be kept for an extended time, since future investigations that would use the video recordings could happen years after the sale. A similar New York state bill would require that the videos be kept for one year.
Likewise, two weeks ago, Minnesota enacted a law — with much less fanfare — that would require video- or photo recording of people who come to sell cellular phones, with each recording to be kept for at least 30 days:

(a) Each wireless communications device dealer shall install and maintain at each physical location video surveillance cameras, still digital cameras, or similar devices positioned to record or photograph a frontal view showing a readily identifiable image of the face of each seller of a wireless communications device who enters the physical location.

(b) The video camera or still digital camera must be kept in operating condition and must be shown upon request to a properly identified law enforcement officer for inspection. The camera must record and display the accurate date and time. The video camera or still digital camera must be turned on at all times when the physical location is open for business and at any other time when wireless communications devices are purchased or sold.

How would you feel about that being used in the voting context?

I’d drop the need for IDs if we require that the person identify himself and there was video of him.

[Cyros]

Other than the obvious concerns about evil doppelgangers I could support that.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

How would you feel about that being used in the voting context?

I’d drop the need for IDs if we require that the person identify himself and there was video of him.

Well, as the holder of a degree in software engineering, I feel meeting the technical challenge is feasible.

As the holder of a degree in commerce, I feel some concerns about the financing issues - will this require federal subsidy and such.

As a rational human being, I feel the whole exercise is a ridiculous waste of a time in response to a boogeyman problem with obvious overtones of cynical election manipulation by means of practical disenfranchisement, which I find grossly offensive as a supporter of democracy.
So you might say my feelings are mixed.

[elucidator]

Well, maybe, but your head is screwed on right. Of course, that’s coming from me, and my degree is in Far Western Studies.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Thanks, cowboy.

[elucidator]

“Yippie tie-die, get a long little doobie…”

[elucidator]

One nice thing about solutions to a problem that doesn’t actually exist: they cannot fail.