Nothing. My saying this is more democracy in action.
That’s apparently the new safety net. It’s all democracy in action.
What part of Georgia’s laws are you talking about, specifically?
Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.
And since this thread began before the Supreme COurt handed down Shelby, I assume your objections to Voter ID law existed even before the Justice Department was defanged. Is that incorrect? The objections raised at this thread’s beginning were all about what might happen if Voter ID laws were invoked after the Supreme Court struck down Section 5?
Who cares? I have no idea who is innocent, guilty, effective, or ineffective in their attempts to be innocent or guilty. I can’t possibly know the motives of the legislators.
I just support Voter ID.
There are of course multiple valid descriptors; the point being that criticizing what one perceives as a misapplication of democracy does not translate to a desire to eliminate democracy, and an accusation of such is vapid at best.
Vapid? Nah, man, it was democracy in action.
A nifty evasion. You may assume that I am referring to the “Georgia laws” that you cited in support of your argument. You do recall citing them, yes? So, how is it that you are suddenly perplexed as to my reference?
And you attribute this happy fact to the generosity and civic virtue of the Republican Party? There being no other reasonable explanation?
Since I did not make such arguments, I feel no obligation to defend them. However, you may assume whatever you like.
I’m sorry, I must have confused you with the other Bricker. The one who stipulated that, yes, indeed, some of the motivations of some unspecified number of Republican legislators were malign.
And yes, we are all thoroughly aware that you support voter id, which I assume is why you keep trying to shift the argument to that question.
Not you, evidently.
After 1000+ posts, thanks for finally summarizing your stance succinctly.
Of course you fucking can. :rolleyes:
And we all know *your *motives, too.
Great, then by the principles of equality, everything you’ve said in this thread had exactly the same merit as anything anyone’s said.
Yeah.
It does seem anti-climatic.
So perhaps “it’s democracy in action,” is not a useful rejoinder, true as it obviously is.
I was perplexed because OCGA § 21-2-417 is perfectly acceptable, so far as I am concerned. Since you also believe it to be acceptable, then we don’t really have any further areas of disagreement.
Yes, undoubtedly they were.
I’ve never argued any other question.
No matter how many times we repeat that the issue is using legitimate laws to illegitimate purposes, every time we do, you blink, once, twice, and blandly resume your argument about what a great thing voter id is.
Who are you arguing with?
If that’s a face-saving retreat, fine.
But you cannot seriously contend that there have not been hundreds of posts here attacking the existence of Voter ID laws, and not by any means limited to the concept that they’re fine laws except for the nasty thoughts in the heads of the Republicans when they passed them.
All the way back in 1904, the Supreme Court confronted the weighty issue of the proper taxation of the butter substitute oleomargarine - I guess they could believe it wasn’t butter. The law in question taxed margarine very little if it wasn’t colored yellow, but imposed a high tax if the oleomargarine was colored yellow to look like butter. One McCray, a licensed vendor of yellow oleomargarine, sued under the Due Process Clause, saying that Congress was depriving him of property. He alleged that Congress’ real purpose was obvious: colored natural butter wasn’t taxed at all. The real scheme in the minds of these no-good crooks in Congress, averred McCray, was to tax oleo sellers such as himself right out of business because they, Congress, were beholden to powerful dairy interests.
In response to this allegation of an improper motive, Chief Justice Edward Douglass White wrote: “The decisions of this court from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted.” What, then, can correct a lawful act which is done with a wrongful purpose or motive? His answer: “The remedy for this, however, lies, not in the abuse by the judicial authority of its functions, but in the people, upon whom, after all, under our institutions, reliance must be placed for the correction of abuses committed in the exercise of a lawful power.”
This principle was reaffirmed in 1968, when Chief Justice Warren wrote for a Court that was considering a matter more weighty, albeit less tasty, than butter substitutes. David Paul O’Brien had burned his draft card in front of the courthouse, and was charged with a federal crime as a result. Congress had, in 1965, amended federal law to include “knowingly destroying” a draft card as a crime, and O’Brien alleged that it was obvious Congress’ real purpose was to prevent public destruction of draft cards, and thus chill free speech. Since that motive frustrated his First Amendment rights, argued O’Brien, he could not be convicted. In upholding O’Brien’s conviction, the Chief Justice wrote, “It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.”
Motives that might have been in the minds of some fraction of the legislators who voted for a proposal are utterly meaningless in deciding the validity of that proposal.
You continue to push the supposed dark desires of the legislators, and I have no doubt that as to many of them, you’re correct in whole or in part.
But that means nothing. The law gets evaluated on its words, not on what motives might have been in play.
Well, also for its potential for negative unintended effects.
And negative intended effects.
No, but it’s fun to watch the clusterfuck. 
Oh, you’re just having a spasm of political nihilism, it’ll pass! Don’t worry your pretty little head about it, in no time at all, you’ll be right back at the same old pop stand, passing out pious and self-righteous drivel about liberal hypocrisy!
I think there’s a gray area with very-newly-passed laws. There’s no reason that the arguments presented on both sides of “that minimum-wage-law that has just been proposed in Colorado is a terrible idea” and “that minimum-wage-law that I just heard about that Colorado just passed is a terrible idea” shouldn’t be basically the same in each case.
Well, some states have non-partisan redistricting commissions, which I believe is a step in the right direction. For instance, California has such a commission. (Note, by the way, that California is of course a massively left-leaning state, so if liberals in general were eager to constantly eke out every electoral edge you’d think that we’d constantly be gerrymandering its congressional districts, and yet we’re not.)
Nonetheless, clearly your larger point stands. So… how does that affect our current debate? My position is that I personally hold laws-affecting-elections to a high standard of ethical scrutiny, and I suggest that others do so as well… you seem at least understanding of that position, but it is not one you subscribe to yourself?
Again you seem to be arguing with something I’m not saying. I’m not saying “I have proven that these laws MUST be found illegal”, I’m saying “I personally find these laws to be ethically lacking, for the following reasons, and I believe that others should subscribe to my same views. I think the people proposing these laws acted unethically, and the US would be better off if people did not do so, and I expect someone to be able to say that while they support the putative aims of the laws they are also troubled by the precise circumstances”.
Again, when have I demanded anything. I’ve made an argument, which is that some level of “voter unconfidence” has been present in the US since it’s beginning, and is present in nearly every democracy on earth. That’s evidence that it’s not a dire issue. It’s not proof, but it’s an argument. If you disagree, well, fine, but don’t act like I’m arbitrarily just demanding something.
Do you think that’s a black and white issue? There’s a wide spectrum with “literally devoted maximal human effort to voting and still failed” on one end and “put zero effort into it due to nothing more than laziness” on the other end. There are certainly going to be people near the first end of that spectrum who could have conceivably prioritized some things differently and sacrificed something and been able to vote, but were not UNABLE to vote. For you to divide things into “voted” and “chose not to vote” trivializes the issue.
I’m not saying that at all. We SHOULD start. But we should start in a fashion that doesn’t have negative side effects. And, while we’re at it, we should also start with a big and important step, such as auditable voting machines.
Ummm, I’ve lost track of what you are saying. I think Gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage is scuzzy and antidemocratic, and I decry it. Do you think that Gerrymandering is just so totally routine that it’s now “everyone always does it at all times”? (Or are you taking issue with my distinction between gerrymandering-for-electoral-advantage and gerrymandering-to-ensure-a-majority-black-district? If so, that’s an interesting topic worthy of debate but seems outside the scope of this thread.)
If it’s not obvious to you that behavior can have multiple contributing factors, probably not.
Even if the effect is small the likely number affected is probably vastly larger than documented cases of fraudulent voting.
“Very newly passed laws,” would mean what, in terms of time?
Why are you allowed to use “likely number” and “probably” but my side of the argument must be “documented cases?”