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

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

You’re ignoring the context of the response, which was specifically to your oft-used tact of claiming to be on the receiving end of unfair treatment on this board because your politics are not popular here. It’s only inexplicable if you ignore the explanation.

You have ample access to adult conversation about the subject. You argued that sustaining voter confidence is more important than avoiding disenfranchisement. I see this as a blatant pretext for election manipulation (and sometimes the pretext is plain and simple text). I am confident my position is more rational than yours, given certain axioms like “democracy is good” and “democracy involves voting”.

And you’re free to think so.

But guess what? There are still Voter ID laws. You’ve got the SDMB solidly behind you, though, so…

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

And you’re free to think so.

Demonstrate so, too, as I have.

But guess what? There are still Voter ID laws.

By succumbing to irrationality, your country is weakened

You’ve got the SDMB solidly behind you, though, so…

By encouraging rationality, this board is strengthened.

[elucidator]

Using reasoned argument with Bricker is like trying to beat a rhinoceros to death with a Nerf bat.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Demonstrate so, too, as I have.

Well…you’re free to THINK you’ve demonstrated it, anyway, sure.

But I’m perfectly happy see you exercise this freedom to declare victory on the SDMB, as long as I get to declare victory in the actual world of real Voter ID laws.

So, congratulations, brave warrior of the free SDMB!

[Bryan_Ekers]

@elucidator

Using reasoned argument with Bricker is like trying to beat a rhinoceros to death with a Nerf bat.

Rhinos are dangerous. It’s more like trying to beat a tree to death.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

So, congratulations, brave warrior of the free SDMB!

Thanks for conceding that I’m better suited to rational debate than you are, though it’s been apparant for some time.

[elucidator]

You know, come to think on it, I’m not sure what the score actually is, any more. I know a bunch of cases have gone to court, some won, some lost, but what is the actual aggregate?

[ElvisL1ves]

This site looks like a good summary.

[Lobohan]

@Bricker

Great.

Then let’s take that as the new ruleset.

You’re free to think voters shouldn’t have to produce ID. The rest of the country is free to collectively reject that cunning plan. I’m free to chortle happily as court after court hands a defeat to you.

And the voters are free to get their free ID and vote, or whine about how they can’t.

I like it.

Of course you like it. Your parents didn’t teach you to respect fair play. You want to cheat, because it makes you think you’re smarter. Also, the public is for Voter ID. Not implementing Voter ID in such a manner as to give advantage to one party. I wish you’d be able to retain that bit of info, it might let some steam out of your gassbag.

Being a smug asshole isn’t an argument. As of now, you’ve presented no argument that makes any sense for why a solution that makes the problem worse is a good idea. Other than it makes the other cumpigs in your party ascendant.

Also, your attack on the credulity of “liberal” posters here is rich, considering you think an ineptly written collection of fables from a bunch of stinking primitives is the word of God. I guess, some shit you don’t need evidence for, right?

In any case, this thread is about shitty people like you trying to steal elections, not about some mildly plausible story of shitty people like you trying to intimidate poor people.

[Buck_Godot]

Bricker, the problem that I have with your arguments is that every one of them apply equally well to poll taxes and Literacy tests prior to 1964.

One could easily make the case that literacy tests were necessary to protect Democracy, and that anyone who can’t learn to read or scrape up the few dollars necessary to pay the poll tax is not motivated enough to deserve a vote.
As it stands today I am sure that you recognize that such laws were a undemocratic attempt to disenfranchise a certain section of society that “voted the wrong way”, and understand the legitimate outrage that these law engendered in those affected by them. However I suspect if we put the current Bricker back in 1962 without the experience of the past 50 years, he would be gleefully mocking those whiners who are upset about these popular laws that had been upheld by the courts, with unfounded claims of discriminations. (How can a poll tax be discriminatory if both Blacks and whites have to pay it?)

[Bryan_Ekers]

I gather we’re amid another of Bricker’s sour grapes moments, where having lost an argument on a message board, he tries to salvage some dignity by implying that arguing on message boards is, like, totes uncool and he could totes win if he thought we were worth the effort, which we’re totes not.

[Bricker]

@Buck_Godot

Bricker, the problem that I have with your arguments is that every one of them apply equally well to poll taxes and Literacy tests prior to 1964.

One could easily make the case that literacy tests were necessary to protect Democracy, and that anyone who can’t learn to read or scrape up the few dollars necessary to pay the poll tax is not motivated enough to deserve a vote.
As it stands today I am sure that you recognize that such laws were a undemocratic attempt to disenfranchise a certain section of society that “voted the wrong way”, and understand the legitimate outrage that these law engendered in those affected by them. However I suspect if we put the current Bricker back in 1962 without the experience of the past 50 years, he would be gleefully mocking those whiners who are upset about these popular laws that had been upheld by the courts, with unfounded claims of discriminations. (How can a poll tax be discriminatory if both Blacks and whites have to pay it?)

There are two differences between Voter ID laws and poll taxes.

(1) Poll taxes for federal elections were done away with by super-majority vote: the passage of the 24th Amendment outlawed them.

(2) They were outlawed for state elections as well, because of the observation that there was no relationship between a tax and the vote, other than as a barrier. The requirement to show ID is related to ensuring that only qualified voters vote; the payment of a tax has no similar effect.

But of course we’re all free to act as we please.

[ElvisL1ves]

Even as recently as 1966, three Justices were able to find a “valid neutral justification” for the poll tax, despite your false claim otherwise.

Joined by Justice Potter Stewart, Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, arguing that the Court had allowed some forms of discriminatory voting qualifications without violating the equal protection clause, e.g., *Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections *(literacy test), Breedlove v. Suttles (poll tax on men), as long as it was rational. In this case, Virginia’s poll tax could be deemed rational because of state’s desire to collect revenue and the belief that people who pay to vote might have more interest in the state’s policies.

Bolding added. The similarity of that last point to the ones you keep yammering about is striking, isn’t it?

You’re supporting the modern-day continuation of Jim Crow. It’s disgusting and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

A fuller discussion of how Republicans with more awareness than you of what they’re doing explain it.

[elucidator]

Well, that’s just “some” Republicans. Not all. Just some. Republicans know that more minority voting will hurt them, but they don’t care, because they are so committed to equality before the law. And stuff. This is my official edict, tremble and obey!

It’s Highness, the Queen of Romania.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Of course now I’m curious if poll taxes were racially applied and if so, on what pretext (or was a pretext even needed?). I’ll have to look it up.

[MaxTheVool]

@Bryan_Ekers

Of course now I’m curious if poll taxes were racially applied and if so, on what pretext (or was a pretext even needed?). I’ll have to look it up.

I’m curious whether there had always been poll taxes dating back long before anyone ever dreamed of black voters, or if they were implemented for “neutral” reasons right when it would also be very convenient for whites if black voting rates declined considerably… which would of course make it even MORE analogous.

[AlienVessels]

@Bricker

It’s essentially impossible for anything to be “free,” if the answer to your question is “no.” A store could give away chaise lounges at no cost, but customers would still need to expend gas money to drive themselves to the store. And if the store refused to provide twine and protective wrap, I still promise you that no one would suggest that the chaise lounges were not really free.

But it makes no difference. As Bryan cogently observes, we are each free (in the sense of ‘permitted’) to react as we like to whatever scheme exists.

We could easily make voter registration happen at the polls. Instead some states have chosen to SPEND resources to put up costs to register.

You claim it’s because they want to increase voter confidence in the vote. I think that’s true. They want to be more confident about the wrong kind of person voting rather than as you claim, people who aren’t legally qualified to vote.

And your justification is that your side can make these laws - the “neener neener” argument. And all of this is “right” because the majority supports it. (Of course, what they really think about the whole situation is rarely made clear by polls.

What’s hilariously ironic is a conservative Catholic arguing moral relativism to liberals.

[BigAppleBucky]

Ohio blocks early voting

Wouldn’t want working poor with two jobs to be able to vote on a Sunday.

In happier news, though student photo IDs were banned as usable in Wisconsin for voting, the university has started a program that gets around the restrictions.

Students seek to overcome voter ID barriers at the polls

One week into distributing voter identification cards to out-of-state students, University of Wisconsin’s Wiscard office has seen just over 100 students take advantage of the free service.

After the state reinstituted the controversial voter ID law earlier this month, UW began issuing free state voter ID cards on Sept. 12, in an effort to simplify one of the steps out-of-state students must take to vote in the November gubernatorial elections.

[Bricker]

@BigAppleBucky

Ohio blocks early voting

Wouldn’t want working poor with two jobs to be able to vote on a Sunday.

Lots of states don’t offer Sunday voting. In fact, the majority don’t.

Are they all acting unconstitutionally?

Or is the rule you don’t have to offer it, but once you do, you can’t ever stop offering it?

In happier news, though student photo IDs were banned as usable in Wisconsin for voting, the university has started a program that gets around the restrictions.

Students seek to overcome voter ID barriers at the polls

As long as the ID cards issued by universities follow a procedure that allows them to serve as legally sufficient evidence in a criminal trial, I’m all for this.

And of course, everyone reading is free to agree, or disagree, and govern themselves accordingly.

[ElvisL1ves]

@MaxTheVool

I’m curious whether there had always been poll taxes dating back long before anyone ever dreamed of black voters, or if they were implemented for “neutral” reasons right when it would also be very convenient for whites if black voting rates declined considerably… which would of course make it even MORE analogous.

You already knew the answer, didn’t you?

This tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the ability to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws as a means of restricting eligible voters; such laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

No “valid neutral justification” was required, but it would have been as easy to dream one up as it is for the newest incarnation, Voter ID laws. And, better yet, poll taxes were confirmed as constitutional by SCOTUS in 1937, before reversing themselves (nonunanimously) in 1966. Bricker’s grandfather, if he’d been allowed to vote, would have been just as justified as he is himself today in neener-neenering any objections.