Duly noted. The charge is withdrawn. However, let it be further noted, just for clarity of the record, that Massachusetts is but one state, whereas this most recent Republican skulduggery involves several. Indeed, every state where they have the necessary majority to go forward with it, yes?
I also stand ready to heap praise on those many, many Republicans who stood firm in their rejection of this repulsive tactic. Just as soon as I hear about any.
Be that as it may, it is a comfort to know that while you were railing at me for insufficient outrage about Massachusetts, if I had but draped the gossamer veil of equivalence over it, you would have instantly apologized. Pity I didn’t think of it.
It should also be noted, that in Mass, they switched up a law, and allowed people to vote. It was designed to keep the then governor from appointing someone, but instead gave an election.
The GOP idea, is to keep segments of people from voting for electoral gain.
Anyone who thinks they’re equal is a poor judge of such things.
Michigan, Louisiana and Idaho, all with Republican controlled upper and lower legislative houses and governors, allow voters to simply sign an affidavit affirming their identify and cast an ordinary ballot - no ID needed. Montana, also controlled across the board by Republicans, doesn’t even require the sworn statement – a “Polling Place Elector ID” form can be filled out.
On the other side of the aisle, Colorado and Rhode Island, with both legislative houses controlled by Democrats and a Democratic governor, require Voter ID.
Which switch in Massachusetts are you talking about? There were two: the Massachusetts legislature actually changed the law to de-authorize appointments by Mitt Romney (R) when he was governor, and then changed it back to re-authorize appointments by Deval Patrick (D) when he was governor.
I think there are some good abstract, philosophical reasons that one might want to reject a law based on motives, but there’s also an important practical reason:
– Once passed, these laws have to be implemented.
– The people implementing them will usually be, broadly speaking, the same people who proposed the laws (the same political party in the same state, with some level of coordination between the legislature and the executive).
– And the ways in which they are implemented can vary quite a bit depending on the goals of these people.
If the actual, ultimate goal of the politicians in a given state proposing Voter ID laws is to depress voter turnout among Democratic-leaning populations (specifically poor and minority ones), just how diligent, responsive, and proactive would you expect the state’s bureaucracy to be helping to get these citizens their IDs?
… And would you consider it more or less likely that a person in the targeted demographic who *has *ID would encounter additional inconveniences the next time he has to renew it?
That makes no sense. You were trying (according to you) to discover if I also accused the Republicans of similar poor behavior. That doesn’t involve liberal hypocrisy, which would be liberal endorsement of inconsistent positions. Your question involved whether or not I condemned Republicans for committing similar misdeeds as I was accusing Democrats of committing. As a sound bite, that would be the absence of conservative hypocrisy, I suppose.
How could a search for the literal phrase “liberal hypocrisy,” possibly have resulted in finding a post in which I “brought in equivalence” in that issue?
Even assuming that that’s true of all locales, surely you can imagine that there might be ways to make the process more difficult: new fees, in person visits required (as opposed to mail-in renewal), etc. Things that will tend to discourage poor/unemployed people more than others.
But, more to the point, what about my main question: “If the actual, ultimate goal of the politicians in a given state proposing Voter ID laws is to depress voter turnout among Democratic-leaning populations (specifically poor and minority ones), just how diligent, responsive, and proactive would you expect the state’s bureaucracy to be helping to get these citizens their IDs?”
Ok. You honestly can’t give any credence to the notion that people who install a law with mal intent*, and are also in charge of executing said law, might be inclined to abuse it in subtle ways to further their actual goal?
But it’s not just “Voter IDs” specifically: for most people their ID will (or will not) be their driver’s license, which usually *will *require a fee, and which a middle-class suburbanite is going to be much more likely to keep current than, say, an unemployed inner-city dweller.
– “malintent”? Not sure I’ve ever seen this written out.
As a general rule, the state legislators are not the people in charge of executing state laws, no. The employees of the state bureaucracy are the day-to-day people; the appointed commissioners of motor vehicles or equivalent title the ones in charge.
In my view, it’s for you to actually point out some subtle abuse, rather than simply say there’s some speculation that some one might create some abuse.
Anyone who wants to vote can get a free voter ID card. A person who has a driver’s license can of course use it. A person who doesn’t keep their driver’s license renewed can still get a free Voter ID. A person with a valid license doesn’t even need to take that step.
I’d expect them to be sufficiently diligent as to not raise the concerns mentioned. And since the concern is speculative, that’s really all the answer required.
Are you sure you want to advance the wisdom of the guy who utterly failed to understand that Palpatine was a Sith Lord, actively contributed to Anakin’s isolation and feelings of persecution and drove him into Palpatine’s scheme, and acquiesed in a plan to hide the son of Anakin Skywalker by calling him “Luke Skywalker” and stashing him on Anakin’s home planet right where Anakin had grown up? The one who told Luke to abandon his friends to their deaths on Bespin?
I’m well aware – this is why I laid out in my first post exactly what I meant: “The people implementing [these laws] will usually be, broadly speaking, the same people who proposed the laws (the same political party in the same state, with some level of coordination between the legislature and the executive).”
While most of the day-to-day implementation is of course done by civil servants, at some point in the bureaucracy you will typically reach a political appointee who is ultimately in charge of of organizing rules & procedures, setting budgetary priorities, etc. There would undoubtedly be opportunities for such a person or party to tweak the mechanics of the bureaucracy in such a way as to disproportionately hinder their political opponents, if they were so inclined. If a law is passed with bad intent, I would simply argue that it reasonable to assume the people (again, broadly speaking) who passed it might, in fact, be so inclined to apply it unfairly in this way.
I don’t have any examples in this case, and I’m certainly not willing to wade through the liberal blogosphere to find some (ugh). But I’m not even really talking about voter ID laws specifically, rather just the notion that lawmakers’ intent can have no relevance to the advisability of supporting a given law.
To use the most out-of-proportion example I can think of: if you’re weighing whether or not to grant emergency powers to an executive, it makes a big difference whether that executive is Lincoln or Hitler, even if the actual bill under deliberation is the same in either case. What follows passage matters, and intent is a reasonable indicator of what may follow.
As far as the voter ID laws are concerned, I think this is basically the point. The people for whom we’re adding an additional step (which is sure to weed out some would-be voters) are on average much more likely to vote for the opposition party. Not to put too fine a point on it, but that’s fucking shady.