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

[elucidator]

I can be cool about that Amendment, all that would be required is a few sensible stipulations. One, the state will commit to “going the extra mile” to extend such identification to each every hot-dish besotted Minnesotan. Not that such a thing is simply made available, but a serious effort is expended.

After all, we are advised by out tighty-righty brethren that the number so afflicted is miniscule, teeny-tiny, so small as to be brushed aside without a qualm…

Off the top of my head, I’d maybe start with a hotline, call this number if you think you have a problem. We’ll check you out on the intertubes, if we find you kosher, we will offer you one or several locations close your home…a post office, a bank, a Rainbow, a Cub Foods, a Piggly Wiggly…when you can have your picture taken, picture transmitted to state id database, picture printed on voter id, sent to whichever address you deem appropriate.

If, for some reason, you cannot leave your home, we will send somebody to take your picture and get your affidavit. Bada boom, bada bing, voter id. Nothin’ to it.*

And the dread menace of voter confidence failure is lifted from the shoulders of a groaning Republic! And the people rejoice!

*(Some of you will be thinking that lots of people will simply pretend to need home servicing out of sheer laziness. No, they won’t. Not around here, they won’t. They’re Minnesotans, and they are weird. Calm, bland, polite, yes. But weird.)

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Chopper9760

Well, if 90% of people have an ID then, yes, I would say it is both easy and natural to have ID. Exceedingly easy, so easy that my ass was able to say it.

Pretend the Supreme Court just ruled that no can ask for ID at the polls, that it’s a dead issue. That 10% of people without ID is still fucking bizarre. I’m asked for my ID so often that I can safely judge that 10% of the population are*** fucksticks ***because if I got prompted a couple of times a day for something I didn’t have, I’d fucking figure out how to get it.

Or, you know, learn how to do without it.

I don’t give a damn that you think it’s naturally easy to get ID. For some reason, 10% of the population doesn’t. And whether or not you consider them “fucksticks”, they have the right to vote. So once again, we’re at this crossroads, where either the percentage of people who don’t have ID because they cannot get ID must be ludicrously tiny, or the actual occurrence rate of voter fraud must be hundreds of times higher than it is reported to be, or both, in order for voter ID laws to make sense.

You’ve listed a full-time job as a reason someone might not get an ID.

Nope, I’ve listed exaggerated employment and poverty. There’s a difference. If you’re poor and paid by the hour, living week to week, then guess what: taking a day off to visit the DMV (which, at times, really is fairly far away) is just not something you can budget in. At all. What percentage of people who lack IDs do you think lack them because it would be an unreasonable expenditure for them (that is, it’s either not feasible because they cannot budget in the time+transport+money for a birth certificate, or it’s simply not reasonable, because the above time+transport+money, while doable, would mean missing off on their one day off, or missing their chance to see their children on the weekend, or setting back their savings. Both are problematic.)?

Look at all of those paragraphs mah pucker pronounced, good job Ass, Imma pick you up some Charmin on the way home. I’ll probably be asked for ID when I pay with my credit card though, whew, good thing I’ve had a picture ID since I was 11 and a DL since 15, huh?

Yes. It’s also a great thing that you can’t see past your incredibly oversized asshole, eh?

[elucidator]

…good job Ass, Imma pick you up some Charmin on the way home…

Cheapskate. Romney uses $20 bills.

[Bricker]

@Sinaptics

Again, the poll taxes and literary test were also completely legal. Is that the standard you’d like to keep?

Yes, it is.

By that I mean work to change unjust laws, not decry them as somehow illegitimate.

Which is what worked with poll taxes, incidentally.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

The voter ID laws you champion are consistent with the letter of the Constitution, but not the spirit and intent.

Who gets to decide what the spirit and intent of the Constitution is?

[Bricker]

@Mentor_and_Liar

The wording is vague; “valid photographic identification as prescribed by law” (from your citation). If the amendment should pass then law will have to be enacted defining acceptable ID. The amendment was proposed by the Honorable Representative Mary Kiffmeyer. Or Mare, or Marenheimer (she loves that, that and having her hair pulled, perhaps I over-share).

Mare has authored a raft of voter bills, all, I believe, vetoed or overturned by the courts. As Secretary of State she tried to disallow use of off reservation Tribal ID cards for same day registration, this was challenged and finally settled in favor of the plaintiffs. In 2005 (I think) she supported a decision invalidating student proof of residence, a Hennepin County judge issued a restraining order, but, damage done and all that (win!).

Ms Kiffmeyer frequently uses the phrase “state issued ID.” Ms Kiffmeyer has advocated for government ID showing a photo and proof of residency (no address on a passport). Ms Kifmeyer is the state chairwoman of ALEC. Ms Kiffmeyer is the Administrative Director of Minnesota Majority, which is a scary mess all in itself. I’m going to stop here (is your hair on fire? mine is) and let you consider that this is the woman who will be the trusted elected official, or tip of the spear as we say, when “valid photographic identification as prescribed by law” will be decided.

One in a while, when she’s in her cups she will slur “oh fuck it, let’s just let the riff raff vote and I’ll move to Sweden or Japan where they have racial purity.” So, maybe–a boy can dream–my passport will stand the test of The Kiffenmeyer and her ilk.

Does this morass mean you now concede that passports will be valid ID within the meaning of the law in Minnesota if this amendment is passed, or you continue to aver they won’t be?

[Bricker]

@BigT

The fact that they can get them isn’t the problem. The problem is that it’s an extra step for something a lot of people barely want to do in the first place. It doesn’t matter that they can do it, just that they won’t, and that there’s no way the Republicans proposing this didn’t think about that before coming up with this.

This seems to be a running theme with you. When you support something, you are supporting all effects of said something. When one affect–preventing fraud–accomplishes nothing, but another–discouraging voter turn out–accomplishes something, it is rational to assume the point is the second and not the first. Specifically once both ideas have been articulated.

Again, your argument doesn’t matter. You might as well be arguing that a mandatory abortion law that allowed for exceptions if you filed them was equivalent to the current state of people having a choice. They’d still be able to not have an abortion, so it’s the same thing, right? No, it isn’t, and any argument based on that fact is disingenuous. You would object to that law even more than we object to this one.

I don’t concede that the laws accomplish nothing.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Who gets to decide what the spirit and intent of the Constitution is?

Well, its a group effort, isn’t it? Collective, so to speak.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Well, its a group effort, isn’t it? Collective, so to speak.

Are you asking my opinion? Yes, and the group has spoken. You don’t seem to agree with the group.

[elucidator]

Snappy comeback! Bricker wins the internet again!

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Snappy comeback! Bricker wins the internet again!

Agreed. It’s a mystery as to why you even try.

[elucidator]

Wouldn’t dream of it! Like everybody else, I’m just here to bask in the glory!

[Uzi]

@Mentor_and_Liar

Uzi, I’m not at all sure you even merit a reply; you have already made it clear that you believe people who are not just like you are not as worthy of voting.

Yes, there are all sorts of people who shouldn’t vote. The retards, the greenies, the luddittes, a whole bunch of religious whackjobs, people who watch ‘Jersey Shore’, etc. But no where have I said they can’t vote, or I’d stop them from voting, if they meet the eligibility requirements. Why do you keep attributing this to me? Can you not read?

How can you say that a legal citizen’s opinion is not valid?

You say I lack focus? Did someone else write this sentence and not you? I’ll highlight the relevant part for you. Just like I should not be permitted to vote, anyone who has the right to vote should be allowed. How you going to determine that, Sparky? Come on, you just admitted they should have to prove who they are, so now we’re just discussing the level of ID required.

The United States as a whole, vote at a rate of 41% of eligible voters. Minnesota has a 55% voting rate with what has always been sufficient registration requirements, Texas has voter suppression photo ID laws, they vote at a rate of 32%. What does this prove?

That a minor issue like how many people can’t get ID wouldn’t even be on your radar if you really were concerned about the opinions of citizens?

[ScarletNumber]

@Chopper9760

I’ll probably be asked for ID when I pay with my credit card though, whew, good thing I’ve had a picture ID since I was 11 and a DL since 15, huh?

I sincerely doubt it, since it is a violation of the merchant agreement with Visa and MasterCard to ask for ID.

@Bricker

The populace has always had the power and the right to craft voting laws. They can absolutely vote to restrict voting, as long as their actions are consistent with Constitutional guarantees.

As the Voter ID laws are.

This is a non sequitur.

[elucidator]

You ask me: What is the Spirit of the Constitution! I know you didn’t, but I’m going to tell you anyway. (cue the music…wheres the music…you know, that smarmy inspirational stuff they play when they’re about to take a huge patriotic dump of maudlin sentiment…no, not Country Joe and the Fish, what are you, nuts? Friggin hippies! Fuck it, I’ll write it myself, I’ll do it live!!..)

Justice is the spirit of the Constitution. It is the spirit that inspired the Founding Fuckups to create something beyond anything seen before, a flawed but revolutionary framework, a secular miracle. As individual men, none of them were remotely equal to the task, inspired by justice, they brought forth a wonderful thing.

When the Constitution is used to promote justice, that spirit thrives. When the Constitution is used to assert that one man is another’s property, it becomes unjust, the spirit is violated. Or when it is used to assert that one political party may use the mechanisms of law to vote itself an electoral advantage, it is unjust, and hence, unConstitutional even if it does not contradict any specific words of the Constitution.

Perhaps we listen more closely to the Constitution, that we hear the music as well as the words.

[Mentor_and_Liar]

@Bricker

Does this morass mean you now concede that passports will be valid ID within the meaning of the law in Minnesota if this amendment is passed, or you continue to aver they won’t be?

Lawya, please. The amendment reads “valid photographic identification as prescribed by law.” There exists no current Minnesota law–that I know of, that has stood–that defines “photographic identification.” Ima let former Republican Governor Arne Carlson and former Democratic Vice-President Walter Mondale take over here “Surprisingly, there are also two glaring omissions in the proposed amendment. The first is that it does not specify an acceptable government-issued ID. A passport would not qualify, nor would a regular student ID.”

The legislative body that will be charged with prescribing “valid photographic identification” if the amendment should pass, has a history of proscribing anything that does not both have a photo and prove residency. I will thus continue to aver, like a motherfucker, that if the amendment passes, no one knows what, exactly, will be considered “valid photographic identification” but add that it’s not lookin’ real good for brother passport.

[Mentor_and_Liar]

@Uzi

…[shortened for relevancy]

I really should learn to follow my first instinct.

[Uzi]

@Mentor_and_Liar

I really should learn to follow my first instinct.

Sit at the kid’s table while grownups are talking?

[gamerunknown]

@Chopper9760

I would say it is both easy and natural to have ID.

I can accept this in a kind of second order signifier way. Popularity may not meet the strict semantic definition of “natural”, but it just about works as a vague statement. Unfortunately, that may not pass muster when determining whether something has an inimical effect on democracy. For instance, when voter literacy tests were banned, 97.5%+ of the populace would pass.

Edit: oh yeah, illiteracy may be another issue preventing people from registering to vote. How do the Republicans plan on combating that? School vouchers?

[Bricker]

@Even seven

@Bricker

The populace has always had the power and the right to craft voting laws. They can absolutely vote to restrict voting, as long as their actions are consistent with Constitutional guarantees.

As the Voter ID laws are.

This is a non sequitur.

How so?