Justice, Georgia, and Mr. Gonzales

[elucidator]

It’s an old joke.

Colored gentleman shows up at a polling station in Georgia, circa 1958, says he’s there to vote. Having registered to vote by mail, he asks for his ballot.

“Well, now, just a moment!” says a cracker “you got any identification?”

The prospective voter turns out his wallet, with birth certificate, drivers license, and deed to his home. All proper and above board.

“Well, now, that’s all very well, but there’s the poll tax….one hundred dollars!”

The prospective voter opens his wallet again, reaches in, and pulls out a hundred dollar bill, which he lays down on the table.

Flustered, Cracker One brings out his big gun. “There’s still the literacy test!” He then produces a newspaper printed in Chinese, and thrusts it at him.

“Can you read the headline on this newspaper?”

The black man looks calmly at the newspaper, looks Cracker One straight in the eye, and says “Yes, I can.”

Cracker One reels for a second, then says “Well, what does it say?”

“Says ‘Ain’t gonna be no colored folks voting in Georgia today’ “

But seriously folks…

This little item isn’t getting much play out there in the Liberal Media, and I suppose it the grand scheme of whirling shit, it doesn’t count for much. But it ought to.

Seems that some Georgia Republicans have been in quite a stir of late, all wrought up over the dreadful plague of voter fraud! Yes, right here in River City, felonious scoundrels defrauding their way into the voting booth!

Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) on the dread significance of the issue…

The chief sponsor of Georgia’s voter identification law told the Justice Department that if black people in her district “are not paid to vote, they don’t go to the polls,” and that if fewer blacks vote as a result of the new law, it is only because it would end such voting fraud…

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/1105/18natvra.html

And what’s the remedy? A state ID card for such persons who haven’t got drivers licenses. With a fee attached, of course.

That such qualifies as rank discrimination against the poor, and parallels the long discredited notion of a “poll tax”, you might expect this dollop of rectal Jello to get the contempt it deserves. The Justice Dept, of course, would not stand for such shenanigans, especially one so influenced by the dignified patriotism of the Republican Party…

Wanna bet?

…The newly released Justice Department memo quoting state Rep. Sue Burmeister (R-Augusta) was prepared by department lawyers as the federal government considered whether to approve the new law. It also says that despite Republican assurances the law would not disenfranchise elderly, poor and black voters, Susan Laccetti Meyers, the staff adviser for the Georgia House of Representatives, told the Justice Department “the Legislature did not conduct any statistical analysis of the effect of the photo ID requirement on minority voters.”
It cites analyses showing that, in fact, the effects of the law — which will require Georgians seeking to vote to present a driver’s license or an identification card for which they must pay — could fall disproportionately on blacks. It concludes that the state had failed to show the law would not weaken minority voting strength, and recommends that the attorney general’s office formally object to it.
However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in August approved the law. Last month, a judge suspended the photo ID requirement after finding the law imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and will not effectively combat voter fraud. A lawsuit in the case continues…

The alibi?

…A Justice Department spokesman, Eric Holland, on Thursday said the memo was only “a draft that did not include data and analysis from other voting section career attorneys,” and that Georgia’s law was approved because the department determined that it would not adversely affect minorities. The draft, he said, “was subsequently corrected by the state, and also contains a number of factual errors,” though those corrections did not include the statements made by Burmeister and Meyers…

Not sure about the debate here, hardly seems anything to debate about something so stinky. Might have posted something like “Alberto Gonzales – Threat or Menace?”. This is the guy The Leader chose to replace John “Mammophobia” Ashcroft. Does anybody think this is defensible?

So, if these is deemed more rantish than debatable, this unworthy one submits in advance to the luminous wisdom of the Mod Squad. Please note, however, that I have largely refrained from the sort of scatological adjectives this so richly deserves.

[Bricker]

@elucidator

And what’s the remedy? A state ID card for such persons who haven’t got drivers licenses. With a fee attached, of course.

I don’t think it’s wrong to require voters to present identification. That makes perfect sense to me.

However, charging a fee for that identification strikes me, as you suggest, as a measure that will disproportionately affect the poor.

So I’d favor the law as is, with the exception that the state must issue ID cards at no charge when some reasonable means-based test indicates they qualify for a free ID card.

[Bricker]

@Bricker

So I’d favor the law as is, with the exception that the state must issue ID cards at no charge when some reasonable means-based test indicates they qualify for a free ID card.

Of course, they’d have to pay to take the means-based test.

(I kid, I kid.)

[Spoke]

@Bricker

So I’d favor the law as is, with the exception that the state must issue ID cards at no charge when some reasonable means-based test indicates they qualify for a free ID card.

So you think hat-in-hand public humiliation would be an acceptable price to pay for the right to vote? A lot of folks (especially in rural areas where everyone knows one another) with be far too prideful to admit poverty. I’m thinking particularly of some elderly non-drivers I know.

[Bricker]

@spoke-

So you think hat-in-hand public humiliation would be an acceptable price to pay for the right to vote? A lot of folks (especially in rural areas where everyone knows one another) with be far too prideful to admit poverty. I’m thinking particularly of some elderly non-drivers I know.

No.

When I said “means-based” test, I was picturing an unsworn declaration by check-box. “The fee for this ID card is $5, unless the box below is checked… ‘I certify that I qualify for a no-fee ID card.’”

If that counts as “public humiliation” - then yes, I guess I favor it.

The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that only identified, registered voters vote. That’s a reasonable way to achieve it.

If the state can afford it, I certainly wouldn’t oppose a free ID card for all. My voter ID card, in Virginia, was issued at no charge. But if there’s no money to pay for that, then I don’t think what I’m describing is onerous.

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

I don’t think it’s wrong to require voters to present identification. That makes perfect sense to me.

However, charging a fee for that identification strikes me, as you suggest, as a measure that will disproportionately affect the poor.

So I’d favor the law as is, with the exception that the state must issue ID cards at no charge when some reasonable means-based test indicates they qualify for a free ID card.

Better to just issue the card w/o a fee. That way there’s no issue. This is one thing I wouldn’t mind my tax money going towards.

[Doctor_Who]

@Bricker

So I’d favor the law as is, with the exception that the state must issue ID cards at no charge when some reasonable means-based test indicates they qualify for a free ID card.

Interestingly enough, the Georgia law allows for a free ID card if you swear your indigency. Sound good?

Here’s the twist. There is no location to get a free ID card in Atlanta where the majority of the affected indigent live. They would have to figure out a way to get to specific locations in order to get the card, and thus be eligible to vote. Many voters in the dirt-poor rural areas of Georgia (particularly African Americans) are similarly affected. The elderly will face similar problems of access to ID stations.

IMHO therein lies the story, and the injustice.

Cite:

Recent census data shows that African Americans in Georgia are nearly five times less likely than whites to have access to a motor vehicle, thus would be less likely to have a photo ID. Moreover, there are only 56 locations in Georgia that issue the primary identification required by the new law. Many of Georgia's citizens in rural areas who do not have accessible transportation may need to travel through two counties to reach a Department of Motor Vehicle Services (DMVS) office.

Georgia recently eliminated the only two DMVS locations inside the City of Atlanta, the state capital where a substantial number of African Americans live. A person living Atlanta must now travel 10-15 miles to access a DMVS office. 

And again

• Peter Wiggen

[Bricker]

@John Mace

Better to just issue the card w/o a fee. That way there’s no issue. This is one thing I wouldn’t mind my tax money going towards.

No objection here.

[Doctor_Who]

@PeterWiggen

And again

Rats, forgot to finish my thought.

Here’s my thought: I agree that requiring voter identification is not, in and of itself, a bad idea. It can and would reduce voter fraud, and doesn’t seem to be a illegitimate requirement … provided that identification is widely and universally available.

Given that this is not the state of affairs in Georgia, and … I hate to say it … given Georgia’s somewhat checkered past when it comes to ensuring the right to vote of their non-white citizens … I cannot support this law as implemented.

In my opinion, it unfairly prevents access to the voting box just as a poll tax.

• Peter Wiggen

[elucidator]

Utterly unacceptable. Any barrier to voting rights, aside from criminal records, is entirely unacceptable. If the State has any stake at all in this, it is to protect, ensure, and safeguard the voting rights of *every *citizen. Period. Full stop.

One hastens to note the deftness with which friend Bricker has redefined the discussion. If he wishes a debate on the merits of ID programs, I stand ready to be bored to tears by such arcana. I am rather more interested in the chicanery involved in this attempt to disenfranchise a minority, a minority that historicly favors the Democrats, and how this skullduggery was given such a respectful hearing by Mr. Gonzales. Attorney General for the US, prospective Supreme Court Justice and, apparently, loyal minion of the Forces of Darkness…

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Utterly unacceptable. Any barrier to voting rights, aside from criminal records, is entirely unacceptable. If the State has any stake at all in this, it is to protect, ensure, and safeguard the voting rights of *every *citizen. Period. Full stop.

What specific barrier are you talking about-- proving that you are who you say you are in order to vote? Why is that an unacceptable barrier?

Yes, the state must ensure that everyone who is eligible can vote, but it must take action against possible voter fraud, too. Surely you are not going to claim that voter fraud does not exist…

[elucidator]

@John Mace

…Surely you are not going to claim that voter fraud does not exist…

You for real? You read what I’ve posted and said to yourself “Hmmm, looks like ol’ 'luc seeks to denude us of all protections against voter fraud!”

Gimmee a break, OK, John?

[furt]

@PeterWiggen

Rats, forgot to finish my thought.

Here’s my thought: I agree that requiring voter identification is not, in and of itself, a bad idea. It can and would reduce voter fraud, and doesn’t seem to be a illegitimate requirement … provided that identification is widely and universally available.

Given that this is not the state of affairs in Georgia, and … I hate to say it … given Georgia’s somewhat checkered past when it comes to ensuring the right to vote of their non-white citizens … I cannot support this law as implemented.

In my opinion, it unfairly prevents access to the voting box just as a poll tax.

• Peter Wiggen

Why not just require an office in all parts of the state? Say one office per precinct or somesuch?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Utterly unacceptable. Any barrier to voting rights, aside from criminal records, is entirely unacceptable. If the State has any stake at all in this, it is to protect, ensure, and safeguard the voting rights of *every *citizen. Period. Full stop.

One hastens to note the deftness with which friend Bricker has redefined the discussion. If he wishes a debate on the merits of ID programs, I stand ready to be bored to tears by such arcana. I am rather more interested in the chicanery involved in this attempt to disenfranchise a minority, a minority that historicly favors the Democrats, and how this skullduggery was given such a respectful hearing by Mr. Gonzales. Attorney General for the US, prospective Supreme Court Justice and, apparently, loyal minion of the Forces of Darkness…

I’ve redefined things? Requiring voters to identify themselves is an unacceptable barrier??

Jeeze. Go peddle crazy on some other board. We’re full up here.

Now, I agree that you may make a case for charging a fee to the poor for such ID is a barrier. But if the ID is provided gratis, then that’s not an unacceptable barrier.

[Doctor_Who]

@furt

Why not just require an office in all parts of the state? Say one office per precinct or somesuch?

Why not indeed? The two problems that are presented IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE are money and access. You need money to get an ID card, and you need to get to a location where you can obtain an ID card.

The first problem, money, is addressed in the legislation itself. If a person makes a sworn declaration that they are indigent and cannot afford the ID card, then they can get the ID card for free. This provision means that this legislation does not discriminate against poorer people and thus against African-Americans.

The second problem, access, is the real issue in this case. There are not enough DMV offices throughout Georgia. Georgia has around 150 counties, second only to Texas. As my cite notes, there are around 50 locations. That means that there are locations to get an ID card in a mere 1/3 of the counties. Moreover, there is not a location in Atlanta - which has the largest number of urban African-American voters. If you cannot climb in your SUV and drive over to a location, or scrape together the bus fare, you cannot get an ID card and thus can’t vote.

Thus, African-American voters are being disenfranchised. As well as the poor, the elderly and the rural voter.

So … IF you had an office in every precinct where one could get the required ID card. Then I could support this law.

BUT there is not an office in every precinct. And there probably will not ever be as that would require opening approximately 100 more offices. Which is highly unlikely.

A voter identification law is not a bad thing if it was implemented properly. Which is to say - stopping voter fraud - without inhibiting any person’s right to vote. This law directly impacts certain voters’ right to vote. Ergo, it’s bad. It’s particularly bad because it mostly affects Democratic, African-American voters in Georgia. Affecting this demographic as it does is as bad as simply imposing a poll tax IMHO.

And on preview (and out of sheer curiosity), Bricker, do you agree or disagree that the lack of ready access to ID card providers is an “unacceptable barrier?”

• Peter Wiggen

[Bricker]

@PeterWiggen

And on preview (and out of sheer curiosity), Bricker, do you agree or disagree that the lack of ready access to ID card providers is an “unacceptable barrier?”

Yes, that’s an unacceptable barrier.

[elucidator]

@Bricker

…Jeeze. Go peddle crazy on some other board. We’re full up here.
…

I beg your pardon?

[Bricker]

@elucidator

I beg your pardon?

I’m sorry. Let me speak plainly.

@elucidator

Any barrier to voting rights, aside from criminal records, is entirely unacceptable. If the State has any stake at all in this, it is to protect, ensure, and safeguard the voting rights of every citizen. Period. Full stop.

As applied to the question of requiring ID before a person may vote, this is a crazy idea.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

You for real? You read what I’ve posted and said to yourself “Hmmm, looks like ol’ 'luc seeks to denude us of all protections against voter fraud!”

Gimmee a break, OK, John?

Um. That’s why I started the post by asking you what the specific barrier was that you were talking about. So, what is it? As you can see, I’m not the only one who can’t figure it out. Especially if we agree that there should be no fee involved. The US is rather unusual in not having a national ID. The European countries that do have them don’t seem to be tipping toward fascism.

[elucidator]

And it is your impression that this is the core issue, here? That this was a sincere and unblemished effort to curtail the dreadful threat of voter fraud in Georgia? And certainly not, by any stretch of your imagination, could you see any hint of an attempt to trim the voting rolls of undesirable persons, ie, poor, black, and, very likely, of an unfortunate political persuasion?

Hell, Bricker, Pollyanna ain’t that damned naive. I’m not, and I’m pretty sure you’re not either.