My point is that there seems to be an assumption that voter ID laws are inherently discriminatory. To that, I asked: Why do they seem to be the norm in most countries? Countries that are generally much more liberal than the US?
Part of your answer was that the legislators in those countries didn’t intend the laws to be discriminatory. To which I respond: So what? If the laws are discriminatory, why would it matter if the lawmakers didn’t intend them to be so? And yet, we don’t hear a peep about these laws in other countries causing the types of problems predicted for the US.
Something is not right, and I suspect that the assumption that voter ID laws are inherently discriminatory is not correct. I can see how they could be in the short term, but if people are allowed enough time to adjust, then they should operate as well here as they do in Europe. No?
In the case of the US, it’s not an assumption, it’s a conclusion. Please keep up.
Because they’re universal in those countries, and furthermore the government actually helps rather than hinders getting them. That is not the case with the US laws under discussion, as you’d know if you’d been paying any attention whatsoever.
*It isn’t ID’s themselves that are under discussion. * Only those trying to obfuscate the real intent and effects are making that claim, and it’s worked on you.
If they knew it, as they would (and do in the case of the Republicans’ laws), why should that not affect what and how they go about it?
If you had a fucking clue what the debate was about, you wouldn’t even ask that.
A little effort on your part might make that clear to you.
Well, before speculating blindly, I suggest we could pick a West European country (possibly at random) and compare its voter ID requirements to those of a U.S. state under discussion. I’d want to also include a comparison of the registration process, but I’m not demanding it.
As should be evident by now, it’s the implementation that is discriminatory. We already have a system that works well. People identify themselves using appropriate documentation in order to register to vote. They show up and vote. In an extraordinarily miniscule percentage of cases, the system yields a fraudulent vote.
The only reason that some change is needed and that it must occur NOW is that it may be beneficial to Republicans.
I’m fine with a Voter ID system. I would strongly prefer that it be a national ID that was useful for multiple purposes. In terms of implementation, rather than set an arbitrary deadline upon the people, why not set a series of milestones incumbent upon the state. For instance, the state should be required to have shown that the necessary infrastructure exists, that it is accessible to all people, and that they have engaged in a sufficient educational campaign of adequate duration and breadth.
Oh yeah, and everyone should have to obtain this new ID. Let’s hear how easy this is when all of these motherfuckers have to get their ass down to the DMV again!
The federal government has almost nothing to do with the election process in the US. Any ID should be a state ID, not national. Besides, I think opposition to a national ID would make it political impossible to implement. (They’re going to take away our guns!!!)
I think the main difference is history, though it’s very possible I’m just not aware of European efforts in the past at suppressing the votes of various groups (and especially black people). For most of US history, voter suppression was the norm. If the practical effects of modern changes to voting laws is reduced black turnout (as various links have suggested), then I think it’s reasonable to compare these efforts to past efforts to suppress votes.
I’m not aware of similar historical instances in Europe of suppressing the votes of black people or other minorities.
Perhaps the reason you are struggling so mightily in this discussion is that you think a legal perspective is the only legitimate one. Motivations are perfectly acceptable considerations for evaluating the behavior of a legislator or an attorney general. I don’t give a fuck what the elements of a crime are.
(This is basic morality by the way. Little kids will evaluate an act as more wrong depending on physical characteristics (e.g., more plates were broken) than on whether the act was intentional or not.)
I know, you don’t want to cede the neener neener position. Some courts have supported your position, so you want to force everyone into a fucking stupid non-debate about whether our process of making and interpreting laws is to be questioned.
At this point, however, your strategy and motivations are transparent. They are base and partisan and not very respectable. Your petulant butthurt bullshit about all the mean libbies only makes it all that much worse. I’d say you were better than this, but I honestly don’t believe that.
But you keep pointing to examples of other countries, which commonly use national IDs. Try to be consistent. Either these are models to support your position that we could do the same here or they are not.
My basic morality is (shocker) quite different from yours, and I don’t want your twisted, sick, selfish morality in charge of the laws we use in this country.
As you know, I’m no legal mind; but it’s my impression that when some laws are addressed in court, the intent behind the law is, sometimes, looked at. Especially in cases where the plain reading of the law in unclear or a new situation has developed which wasn’t considered when writing a law but may fall under it.
My impression would be that you personally would say that a plain, textual reading of the law should simply abide in each and every case - but that doesn’t actually change matters if that isn’t what happens in practice. I’m sure that I have seen legal rulings in which the decider(s) takes the intent and intended purpose behind a law into account.
Yeah… in all seriousness at least a fair part of the disagreement is not fundamental ethics, it’s how serious a burden the voting imposes, how legitimate it is for a legislature to be changing the rules about how it gets elected, and how important motive is when evaluating a proposed law. People can certainly disagree about those three issues without having radically incompatible moral systems.
In any case, Bricker, after the recent flurry of exchanges, do you still believe that most liberals in this thread want to impose their beliefs on America by fiat?
If we can get past that and back to arguing about our actual positions on voter ID, you never responded to the following posts of mine: 7005 (short and relevant) and 6973+6974 (more involved and less relevant).
Yes. You’re speaking of the legislative intent: what the legislature wanted to accomplish by the legislation. It’s true that there are times – if the plain language of the statute is ambiguous – where this is taken into account.
But what’s being alleged here is a sort of secret, “real” intent behind a facade of phony intent. The intent of the legislatures’ efforts is typically discerned by reference to legislative debate or even in short preambles enacted in the statute; here, the allegation is that there’s a “shadow” motive behind the legislature’s claimed desire to ensure integrity in election conduct. It’s allegations like that I’m talking about when I say that individual legislators’ motives aren’t dispositive.
And the other of us is supporting a position that can cause an ultra-close election’s result to be regarded as illegitimate.
The question of what burden is “trivial,” does not lend itself to proof. I have been dirt-poor: certainly in no better shape than the most poverty-stricken people we’re discussing now. I know what kind of life that is, and I know that I always regarded voting as a way to help myself get out of it. I can then extrapolate that life experience and make a reasonably informed judgement about how little regard voting is held in, if anyone claims that the barriers of a photo ID would prevent votes.
Both arguments can be accused of this. If voters are being suppressed (or thus perceived), this can illegitamize an election just as much as the perception of fraud can.