Sure. Remember, by your admission, this is your litany of complaint, not any kind of a statement that the law is in some way legally defective. So why does it matter what “neutral” means? No twist of the word’s meaning will nullify the law.
Funny thing is, “legally defective” is a far more arbitrary term than “neutral”.
Liberals are very much like Humpty Dumpty in this regard.
Could be. By all indications, I’m not one of them.
Sure you are. You’ve unselfconsciously gone from indignant denials that objections here have anything to do with legality to the claim that “legally defective” is an arbitrary term.
Thus proving “I’m not one of them,” is itself uttered in the best Humpty dialect.
No, I’m not one of your cartoon boogeymen. That you flailingly are trying to cast me as one instead of responding to the many specific flaws I’ve pointed out in your alleged reasoning is something I will take as evidence in support.
Only if “popular” is limited to mean “popular among white people.”
Wasn’t the Georgia law written while Georgia was still under the scrutiny of the Justice Department? Such that they had to have approval? And that approval was given, yes? By which we may reasonably conclude that Georgia’s laws survived such scrutiny, and found to be kosher. All well and good. Especially in light of the “voter outreach” program Georgia was at pains to point to with pride.
We are not saying that voter id laws cannot be constructed and approved. We are not opposed to voter id laws as such, despite your repeated…nay, relentless!..efforts to pretend so.
We are opposed to laws which are discriminatory and tilt the electoral field to the advantage of a particular party. If a voter id can be constructed and approved that does not suffer such grievous error, no problem. Indeed, there are any number of potential benefits offered by a voter id program with needed safeguards.
So, all the Georgia study proves, then, is that such laws* can* be crafted that do not embody the problems we object to. No doubt, kinda the point, isn’t it? That since such laws can be fairly done, they should be fairly done. or not done at all!
As to the second part of your post, when does discrimination become trivial? Do the targets of this discrimination share your view as to triviality? Are you entitled to make that detrmination? On what basis will this be decided, what is the threshold at which discrimination is no longer “trivial”? After all, moving to the back of the bus is only a few steps, a trivial inconvenience…
Yes. I should have been more specific. After the Great Migrations, the black population of the South had shrunk to around 20-25% – Jim Crow was still in effect, and still popular with the (white) majority.
My point to Bricker was that the popularity of this form of voter suppression does not make it legitimate, nor does it provide any indication of whether it will be considered acceptable in the future.
So, you’re saying it’s illegitimate?
Yes, but was it arrived at through an established legal process? If it was, and it’s popular, that’s all that matters. Trying to talk about any other aspect of it (as if there were any) just means that you want to subvert the democratic process and replace it with your own. Why do you hate America?
I win! Neener, neener, neener.
Morally, yes. And I believe that it could lead to some elections being perceived as illegitimate, just as we now see elections in the Jim Crow South as being illegitimate.
This story – about Eric Kennie – pretty nicely encapsulates why I find Voter ID, as currently implemented in states like Texas, so problematic.
It’s stories like this that erode my confidence in elections. The only thing I do have confidence in, is that there are more going to be more people like Eric Kennie than the number of fraudulent votes Texas Voter ID laws will prevent.
And tell me, Bricker. It looks like Eric Kennie has spent upwards of 20 hours sorting through the bureaucratic obstacles placed before him, and spent $23 on a birth certificate (a very substantial sum to him – the equivalent of $315 for someone making $100k), and he STILL can’t vote this time around. Do you feel he esteems the vote too lightly?
The authors of the legislation certainly are total bastards, at any rate.
They disenfranchised Kennie! The bastards!
What a bunch of horseshit.
Do you read that article and think it’s a fair commentary on the issue?
What cads! They did it when most Texans were sleeping! Why, the nerve of those back-stabbers. An honest Court would have waited at least until most Texans were awake.
Anyway, the article itself takes every pain possible to hide the truth, but here it is:
Wrong. He was born Eric Caruthers. That’s his legal name. It was never changed. He now wants to get an ID in the name of Eric Kennie without paying for a legal name change.
And you credulous lot read this and think, “Yeah, he SHOULD be able to get an ID in the name of Eric Kennie, even though his legal name is Eric Caruthers, because racism!”
I don’t care for, or about, the “spin” of the article, for what it’s worth. I’m only concerned with the substance as presented.
From the article:
You’re all heart, Bricker.
I think that after showing a voter registration card posted to his home address, or an expired DPS-issued photo ID, or a utility bill in his name – all of which he tried – he should be allowed to vote, just like he’s been doing his whole life. If only he had a concealed carry license like proper-thinking Texans!
"
The Most Brazen Attempt at Voter Suppression Yet
New revelations show GOP officials in key battleground states are attempting to purge millions of minorities from the voter rolls."
Is it not true that absent fraud, your legal name is whatever name you consistently hold out to be your legal name?