If you are not against IDs in as a matter principle, then I have no quarrel with you. But some of the arguments about an undue burden just come across as pandering. In the VAST majority of cases, it is NOT difficult to get a picture id. Drivers license, state ID, pay 20-25 bucks, get it sent in the mail. Done.
If you want a national ID sent to all citizens, perhaps tied to biometrics in case someone loses it, paid for by the state and tax dollars for civic functions to avoid the poll tax charge, then fine. I am not opposed to any of that. I just get annoyed at this line of argument tossed around that blacks are a bit less likely to have a picture id, so we can’t require an id, as if black people are such fucking cripples and invalids that it’s beyond the bulk of them to fix. It’s not, and people need to stop tossing out rhetoric as if it is.
It is not because the people are black, it is because they have been systemically discriminated against and marginalized for generations.
It is a fact that they have less access to proper ID. That is something that would be great to change, but that would require bipartisanship.
Instead, the republicans are looking at the disadvantaged position that many blacks have ended up in because of the discrimination and marginalization, and take advantage of the already disaffected minority.
I accept that “some” Democrats are unmitigated swine. In my living memory, a number of them have been relentless racists of the worse sort. And mouthed pious hypocrisy while advancing repulsive agenda. This is a matter of historical record.
I often post a line of sarcasm: “The important thing to remember here is that both sides do it!”. I’m kidding. The important thing is to stop them from doing it. Whether or not both sides do is, finally, irrelevant. I was joking. But I have to admit that you might have seen that, and simply took it literally.
Bricker, sometimes, I fail to adjust to the needs of the humor impaired. I promise, in the future, I shall try to be mindful of your limitations. So long as I don’t have to use smilies.
Yes, I have. I pointed out that the appeals court called it a “smoking gun” because they chose to ignore earlier attempts to do the exact same thing. Remember A, B, C and D?
I can imagine you get annoyed at that line of argument. What else do the voices in your head say that annoys you?
Nobody says black people are fucking cripples. People do say that there’s research indicating that voter ID requirements lower votes from black people. Are you unable to see the difference?
Hell, I am not opposed to scrapping the photo ID requirement in its entirety and replacing it with a fingerprint: you vote, but only by first affixing your fingerprint to the registration book. If there arises any question it can be proved you were the person that voted using that name.
But the only time this was seriously proposed, the resistance came from Democrats.
I don’t see how A-D conflict with this – the state said they did it to make it harder for black people to vote. Isn’t the state admitting it in court good evidence that they actually wanted to make it harder for black people to vote?
I was going to suggest that perhaps it would be easy to intentionally start a false rumor that the fingerprints would be checked against those with outstanding warrants and the people thus then subject to immediate arrest, which would depress turnout in those areas where residents routinely undergo greater police scrutiny. But then I seem to remember this rumor being started anyway with regards to Voter IDs.
Here’s an article on the proposal (although this one includes biometric ID, something slightly different from what Bricker suggests). Some objections:
-Expense. If it’s used to ID someone, that’s an expensive solution to a nonexistent problem.
-Possible breakdown. If the machines break down, it can seriously delay votes.
-Suspicion/inadequate public education. Will some folks stay away from the polls out of fear that the fingerprints are used for some other purpose? Will some folks stay away because they believe that cross-referencing fingerprints to criminal databases will pull up their misdemeanor, and they mistakenly think that voting with a misdemeanor is a crime for which they will be rearrested?
Bricker’s proposal doesn’t have biometric ID; I’d love to see the source of it. Simpler still is the Purple Thumb method, which I’d love to see adopted in our country.
Surely this obvious disparity is clear to other legal scholars? If it is, as you insist, so perfectly clear, the legal community must be raining legalistic sarcasm down upon this perfidious ruling! Have you examples of this thunderstorm of disapproval?
And one would be remiss not to notice the Fifth Circuit, which has a well-deserved reputation for doctrinal conservatism. Nonetheless, they stepped up to their duty and performed it! Heartening to learn that the honest conservative is not as extinct as it might seem. I take this moment to applaud them. Pip, pip, good show, that.
I look forward to the day when our efforts on your behalf are rewarded by reform, that I may applaud you as heartily! However, actuarial tables suggest that I may have but thirty, forty years yet to live, so if you could move your timetable a bit, that would be swell!
Then here is how such people should handle the argument. We have NO PROBLEM with ID’s in principle, we just want to make sure the requirement does not causing issues with allowing normal voters that don’t currently have access to an id issues.
See that? Then you CALL their fucking bluff, IF it’s really all just about trying to stop black people from voting, you can tease that out by offering to require ids after a certain date, after policies x/y/z are met to mitigate and counteract if not bolster the voting capability you are worried about.
And while you’re at it, you can demand more polling stations so what happened in Arizona was it? won’t happen again.
You don’t come out as if IDs are like cryptonite to black people voting.
I don’t care that there is some differential effect there because I don’t presume the effects are set in stone, I don’t presume they are some immutable characteristic of the black population when it comes to adoption of ids.
On the previous page, you used as a part of your rationale in favour of requiring IDs despite extra burdens that that might mean to a voter, that that extra burdensome step required effort to take part in voting, and that that was a good thing because the country was made better if a little bit of effort was needed to vote. (You also missed my question in post #9886).
Using a fingerprint in this way doesn’t seem to add much in the way of requiring effort. If you think the country benefits from making voting require effort, why toss those benefits away by accepting this solution?
I am fairly certain that most if not all of the “anti-voter ID” people on this thread have said exactly that.
To be fair, they did not repeat this statement on every post, and instead have been arguing the nitty gritties as to why and how these laws will affect people and elections in the real world.
Republicans have gone after and shut down the exact types of community outreach programs you were advocating for, and then pushed for heightened levels of voter ID that those programs could have assisted with. They shut down polling locations, making longer commutes and longer lines.
This has nothing to do with the characteristic of being black, and only has to do with how the majority treats them.
The problem is in defining “barrier”. Lack of early voting is not a barrier. Seems like liberal judges are saying that once voting is made easier, a state can never go back. Which is very… convenient, if not legally sound. And of course once again they basically removed residency requirement in effect by saying that votes cast in the wrong precinct must still count. Not sure how that’s a barrier either.
I thought political party neutrality was part of the civil rights package. An employer can’t fire someone, or a landlord refuse to rent to someone, solely on the basis of political affiliation. Am I wrong in this? Would a landlord get away with “No Democrats?”
Bricker, if you’d like to calibrate your hypocrometer, look at whether someone has both supported absentee ballots for folks (e.g., military folks) overseas, and supported voter ID laws; such dual positions could well be hypocritical, as would holding both opposite positions.
Someone that opposes use of absentee ballots and supports voter ID might be a terrible person, but they’re being consistent.