The Justice Department disagrees with you.
The word ‘privatize’ in my last post was a key one. In Alberta it was done under a conservative government (pretty much had to be given Alberta!). I don’t know if it saved money, but it is a helluva lot more convenient for the average Albertan.
I guess you missed that whole ACORN thing?
CMC fnord!
Far better to focus on the horrendous hideously black woman contravening the sacred law of Malthus than to notice the guy behind the curtain making off with millions.
Interesting, because private enterprises have tried to step in and make things easier for all involved parties. The republican party has told them to fuck off and die. Do you see now why I’m starting to think that this is less coincidence and more “they’re trying to fuck with our voting”?
Well, I’ve never denied their motivations. But then ‘teh evil’ sometimes does the right thing (at least for most places on the planet. That the US still acts like they live in 50’s Mayberry is pretty odd) for their own evil machinations.
But they aren’t…
Turns out Bricker was right. These places are bending over backwards to make sure that all eligible voters get free IDs if needed. For example, in Sauk City, Wisconsin, the office is open every fifth Wednesday of the month! What could be more convenient than waiting for the fifth Wednesday of the month to get your ID so you can vote?
My humblest apologies, Bricker. You and your brethren are doing nothing but ensuring the full integrity of the voting process. You should be very proud!
I wonder what he’d say about the law in Ohio (IIRC; there are lawsuits filed against it) cutting short early voting? (OTOH, I admit that now that I think about it, it’s not strictly related to ID laws, which is the topic of this thread. But it seems to be evidence of the actual motivations behind them.)
And the Supreme Court disagree with them.
Guess who wins?
Winning!
There is no constitutional requirement that the government “bend over backwards.”
It’s hilarious that ten states have “unprecedented” Voter ID laws. As Inigo Montoya might observe, the author is confused; the word doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. Indiana’s law, passed in 2003, might indeed have been “unprecedented.” Now, with many states passing voter ID laws, they can hardly be said to be unprecedented in any meaningful way.
The Brennan Center, like many leftists, is perfectly willing to lie, because it’s for a “good” (i.e., leftist) cause.
And Sauk City is less than 20 minutes from Madison’s ID office. Gee, I wonder why the Truthy Truth-tellers at Brennan failed to mention that tidbit? Gee whiilikers, Hentor how do you suppose they missed that tidbit?
Let’s see.
Ohio is one of 32 states that even allows any kind of early voting.
Are states that fail to allow early voting at all suppressing their voters? Does the federal Constitution somehow require a state to offer early voting? How long must the constitutionally-required early voting period be?
Or is this some sort of “one-way ratchet?” A state doesn’t have to offer it, but if they do, they can never ever rescind it?
I’d be fascinated to hear your thoughts on this most perplexing issue.
It really comes down to context. You obviously don’t see it as part of a coordinated effort. I’m not so sanguine about it. As you’ve no doubt gathered from this thread, there comes (came) a point for some people where it’s hard not to doubt the motives of some lawmakers. Sort of the way some conservatives jump to conclusions on, say, treaties.
If there’s no merit to it, I’m sure the courts will reject the President’s campaign’s lawsuit against it. Of course, it could still be rejected even if it has merit, but that’s humanity for you.
As an aside, personally, I wouldn’t mind early voting for everyone.
Is there a constitutional requirement for a photo voter ID?
The Brennan Center, like many leftists, is perfectly willing to lie, because it’s for a “good” (i.e., leftist) cause.
[/quote]
What’s the lie? The use of the word “precedent”? I don’t think the word lie means what you think it means. Precedent is perfectly cromulent.
I imagine most every ID office is within, say, 60 minutes or so of another office. So what?
What’s an extra 40 minute trip when the cause is so righteous?
And really, Bricker, leftists? You better watch out or you might start to seem like a whiny little bitch.
Two responses: first, why not? Second, so what?
If we accept that voter rights are fundamental and essential, then it follows that protecting those rights are equally fundamental and essential. And that government should be wary of any intrusion upon those rights. That government should demand that any such intrusion, hampering, or otherwise infringing upon those rights should be clearly and unavoidably justified*. Further, if such unavoidable motivations exist, government should make every effort to minimize any effect that infringes upon such an essential right. If I demand that you have picture ID, then of course it must be free, that goes without saying. Equality of voting rights demands it.
But by that same token, equality demands equal access to such requirements. Any restriction that falls more upon one set of citizens than another is clearly unequal, and violates the spirit if not the letter.
As for “so what?”, well, so what? Is it your view that the Constitution embodies all human rights, so that any right not explicitly referenced in the Constitution does not exist? If equality for voting rights laws is not a Constitutional requirement, are you suggesting that equality under the law is not a Constitutional imperative?
Nitpick pedantic OCD**: according to Wiki, Sauk City is “approximately 18 miles northwest of suburban Madison”. No doubt, in your Lamborghini fueled by the blood of the working class, this can be done in twenty minutes. On my bicycle, a bit longer. I have no information as to public bus service between these points, but am willing to assume its quite a bit more than that.
*In my estimation, phantom armies of undocumented aliens led by revolutionary cadres from CASA does not qualify. YMMV.
** If I had a dollar for every time someone suggested that I seek professional help for my OCD, I would have $1,223. I have no idea where I stole that.
If the Brennan Center is “leftist”, then Mark Shields is Trotsky.
I have no real doubt in my mind that the people pushing for these changes are doing it, in large measure, because they believe it will advantage them politically.
Of course, I believe that many politicians support various “green” initiatives because they believe it will benefit them politically.
In each case, I don’t look to the motives. I look to the basic question: is this, standing alone, a permissible law?
Still, you do see a difference between someone starting a green initiative because he think it’s popular and will get more people to vote for him, thus benefiting him politically, and someone making changes to election law to throw obstacles in the way of his opponent’s voters, thus benefiting him politically. Therefore, I also assume you see why the latter leaves a… bad taste in some mouths, especially given the importance of voting in general and in the American mindset.
ETA: Unless you were saying that the political advantage was to look “tough on voter fraud” or somesuch. If so, I apologize, though I will disagree with what I see as a rosy assumption.
40 minutes by car.
Is it available via bus routes?
The mere fact that votes on this issue are split so decidedly down party lines indicate that it is a partisan fight. There also appears to be a mountain of data that indicates that disenfranchising select voter communities is the exact goal of this movmement, but nobody seems to be screaming that quite loud enough. It’s kind of annoying.