And how does that solve the problem for people needing their license for the first time? Is it ok to significantly burden voting rights if you only do it once?
Let me do Bricker’s response for him:
“Haw Haw Haw! Stooopid Libs. Get a job, poor people!!! Haw haw haw!” — Some Asshole
Salon and the Brennan Center for Justice, two studiously neutral parties that strive above all to deliver factual unbiased analysis of the situation, strike again.
Is there a non-“Voter suppression” reason for opposing automatic voter registration like Oregon has implemented? I can’t see any downside that people would be willing to admit.
Sometimes the direct approach is most effective:
But this isn’t just some local partisan zealot:
Y much mucho mas.
ETA: From 2012 but what’s changed?
Oh, their facts are wrong? Well, then, good thing you’re here! The real facts are at your fingertips? OK, you may proceed to shock us with the wretched truth…
What reasons do you assume a TRULY unbiased organization could find to oppose automatic registration?
Not that your ad hominem isn’t utterly convincing in itself, of course.
From their article:
Nope. They are designed to verify voters’ identities.
Nope. They are not voter suppression measures. That’s propaganda.
A truly unbiased organization might claim that the process of obtaining voter identification is too difficult without claiming that the laws are suppressing voters, although that unbiased organization should first find a study that shows it’s true. The Brennan Center for Justice is replete with quotes that predict voter suppression but thin when it comes to actual results that show it happened. The AJC story, oft-quoted in this thread, showed Georgia’s law was followed by an increase in minority voter participation. Despite years and years of making these claims, you guys still don’t have any study that actually says, “Here are results (not estimates of what will happen in an upcoming election) and they show significant (or any) minority decrease in voting.”
But when facts and ideology clash, ideology must triumph over facts, eh?
Nice minirant, but it doesn’t answer my question.
We have it on the very best authority that at least “some” Republicans have malign motives for all of this. We have solicited further clarification from said authority, but it has not been forthcoming.
But at any rate, “some” Republicans are seeking unearned political advantage. Which means that your characterization as “propaganda” is at the least an exaggeration. Misleading, at best.
Is it an accident, then? The effect on the underserved population, that was an “oopsy”? “Some” Republicans were intentional in that effect, others were…what, exactly? Misled? Gulled, fooled, bamboozled?
Or the opposite, perhaps? The “some” Republicans believed they were accomplishing something to partisan advantage, but they screwed up, and did a good deed by accident?
In case what’s happening in Alabama isn’t crystal clear on its face, every county in the state that has a majority Black population is losing its DMV office. Every single one.
But it’s just budgetary. There’s nothing intentional about it, nosiree, not here!
Sorry, Bricker, but B.E is right - this doesn’t answer the question. I’m actually also really curious on what a legitimate reason would be to oppose automatic voter registration as implemented in Oregon?
I do not oppose the Oregon law at all.
I’m a little surprised at the love for this initiative being shown here; I thought that SMDB orthodoxy required a belief that using drivers’ licenses in connection with voting was terribly exclusionary and deeply racist. I don’t agree with that, of course, and the Oregon method seems to contain enough identity proofing that I think it’s a fine plan.
No, see the motor voter registration is intended to increase the number of people who vote, something Republicans don’t like.
Requiring DL as an ID to vote is something intended to decrease the number of people who vote, something Republicans are all over.
If that was the only way to register, it would be. You don’t seem to understand the difference between making something more inclusive instead of less inclusive.
Well, the part I was interested in concerns voter registration so requiring IDs to vote was not my original question.
Seems like the vote in the Oregon House of Representatives was completely party based. All republicans (except for one who didn’t vote) voted against this bill. And all republicans (and one democrat) voted against this bill in the Oregon Senate. I was just curious what the stated reasons were for voting against this bill because it just seems like the only reason to vote against this is because it enables more people to vote, or, at least, get registered to vote.
I’m sure you have no problem with literacy tests either. Not racist at all, and not in any way exclusionary. Right?
Or is it only you who gets to parody other people’s views in debate here?