You know, we heard the same whining in 2000 in Florida, and the issue wasn’t black voters. It was voters confused by the “butterfly ballot,” a ballot designed by a Democrat, I might add.
There seem to be two schools of thought: that any impediment, no matter how tiny, to the voter is a problem of constitutional dimension, any access to polls that falls short of a metaphorical red carpet is a clear wrong requiring federal redress.
I don’t see it that way. I think Florida voters to foolish to decipher the butterfly ballot just don’t get to vote, and I’m fine with that. I think Georgia voters that cannot be bothered to acquire a free ID just don’t get to vote, and I’m fine with that.
I had to register to vote. That meant I went to the registrar of voters while they were open. In those days - 1981 - there was none of this “register to vote while you renew your driver’s license” crap. I had to take my time, and haul my ass down to City Hall, and fill out a form. And I was eager to do it.
If someone cannot be bothered to take that sort of effort, then I am perfectly happy to have them not vote. And I do not believe that this is violative of federal law.
What’s your position on poll taxes, then? And how do you parse the difference vs. this latest incarnation of them?
Your attempt to compare an error-prone ballot design (complete with the standard GOP talking point, “Approved by a Democrat!”) with an obvious restriction on permission to vote at all is cute but an obvious post-hoc rationalization. You can do better than that, Counselor.
Does GA allow mail-in ballots? Out here (CA) the idea of “going to the polls on election day” is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. In the last special election, something like 25% of all votes were cast by mail. Just a few years ago that % was in the single digits.
Come on, Rick. Even if you can finagle a justification for this as being Constitutional, that’s not the OP’s complaint. The OP is saying in stinks. And it does. Why’re they doing this? Where’s the need for it?
Fair enough. I suppose I should have said, “ONE of the issues was…” You’re right that black voters being targeted was brought up in Florida.
I should add, though, that of the complaints levied in Florida, I think the majority are solved with the provisional ballot rule: if you are incorrectly identified as a felon, you may cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted when the error is corrected. This is a good example of what I’d call over-sensitivity: someone saying, “Oh, the mere effort to prevent felons from voting unfairly targets blacks.” Sorry. Nor am I moved by, “Oh, I was so traumatized by being called a felon that I couldn’t bear to vote.” If you’re not a felon, cast a provisional ballot, and correct the error. Nothing to it.
Another thing that doesn’t move me: the accusation that blacks are discouraged from voting by the mere presence of police officers at the polls. Too damn bad that cops are around. You have a legal right to cast a ballot. Go cast it. If there is actual harrassment, of course that’s a different story.
Finally, the “dirty tricks” business – people getting fliers that say, “You can’t vote unless your rent is paid up,” or “Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday.” I don’t support such tactics, but neither do I have much sympathy for someone that falls for the trick. Exercise of the franchise requires some basic knowledge, and if you believe you can’t vote because your rent isn’t paid, then I’m perfectly content that you don’t vote.
The need for it is the idea that Democrats get out the vote in some areas during some elections by herding homeless around to various polls to vote multiple times. I can’t prove it. But I don’t have to prove it; I’m not saying it to accuse anyone. I’m saying it to point out that there is value in identifying voters and ensuring they vote only once.
Just as an aside, I’ve lived in NY, and live in NJ. Both issue cards for free. The only proof is that the signature on the card match that in a book you sign when you vote. Never heard anyone complain about this being discriminatory.
You get one when you register, no photo is required.
Georgia’s law looks to be very carefully crafted to do maximum damage to the poor. That Gonzales of the “Geneva Conventions are quaint” fame thinks this is fine is hardly surprising.
BTW, I was never once asked to actually produce this card. I’m not even sure I have my current one around anymore, although I’m pretty sure it’s buried somewhere in my wallet, squished between a couple of credit cards or something.
Ah, yes, “whining”, the verb so beloved of the Tighty Righty, carrying the implication of corrupt effeminance, so unlike the wholesome vigor of the Republican, hairy chested palladins of the privileged.
Not in the slightest. Not even close. Once again, you seek to redefine the argument to your own comfort. Ain’t gonna happen. I am perhaps, as you have it, “crazy”. But not stupid. Its a pity that the distinction eludes you. It may well be that certain impediments to the polls are innocent. But an impediment that favors one political viewpoint over another? I don’t think so. Mr. Gonzales, apparently, finds it perfectly honky-dory. You have, no doubt, a perfectly legitimate and innocent explanation for this at your fingertips. Bring it.
The ID is not free. You do read this stuff before you comment, yes?
We are, as always, deeply grateful for your patriotism and civic virtue. Have you anything actually relevent?
And if this “bother” should fall disproportionately on one class of voters, with a distinct political preference, is that kosher? I rather thought this whole “poll tax” thingy had been consigned in disgrace to the ashheap, as it richly deserves. Is Mr. Gonzales not aware of this? Or does he consider such things as “quaint”?
Well, yes, they did, after they got spanked in Federal court. How very kind of them.
Note, as well, that all of this takes place after Mr. Gonzales had rendered his opinion on the matter. Of further droll note (in the same article, which friend Bricker did not regard as pertinent. Or perhaps he simply overlooked it. Which is odd because it is the very next sentence:
I notice nobody’s really explained why this needs to be done, or provided any evidence Georgia suffers from any sort of substantial voter fraud. Ideally the state should be making it EASIER to cast votes, not harder. What is the purpose of this plan, which will obviously make it harder to cast legitimate ballots?
I think the real purpose of this legislation is quite obvious.
So what? Since criminal statutes are construed strictly against the state, this is a fact in favor of the voter. Unless he’s so obviously wealthy that no reasonable person could call him “indigent,” he’s safe in claiming indigency for the purposes of obtaining a free ID card.
A lot of folks are not as well informed in such matters as an attorney. Still, a minor point, and if it gives you comfort, you are welcome to it.
Fact remains, all of this lipstick being smeared on the pig happened after the DOJ leadership (and, presumably, Atty Gen Gonzales) overuled their own staff of civil rights lawyers and declared this all kosher.
Hence, as you may have noticed, his prominent place in the OP. As of yet, you haven’t offered us any opinion on that. May I expect your hearty endorsement of my position in that regard, i.e., it sucks rocks?
I would have exercised my discretion a different way, especially, as I’ve said, with respect to the limited number of locations one can obtain ID cards. Traveling two counties over is unduly onerous.
I don’t think it sucks rocks; I merely disagree with it.
I am perplexed. You do not, it seems, disagree with me on any major points, yet feel compelled to offer me insult, to wit:
Is it the sharp shards of jealousy that so wound you? Then let me assure you, rumors of my astonishing good looks are highly exaggerated. Somewhat exaggerated. One has to wonder why you feel the need to vehemently disagree on such minor differences. Did you simply assume that since I am at such variance with you, politically, that anything I might say must be wrong? And not merely wrong, insanely wrong?
Do you feel some need to defend Mr. Gonzales and his merry band of partisan hacks? Whatever for? His actions in this matter are so clearly wrong, so deeply disrespectful of the Republic we both revere. Surely you would not have it said that your contempt for injustice is less than mine own?
I fear that your enmity is as misplaced as your loyalty.
Your wondering, innocent puzzlement might make sense if my comment simply arose from no context at all.
But if you’ll recall, it came about in response to this statement by you:
THAT was the “crazy” that I asked you to stop peddling here. Certain barriers are perfectly acceptable. We strike a balance between reasonable barriers and open access to the polls. accepting reasonable limitations – like, for example, requiring IDs of voters – in order to ensure that the process is fair: one vote, and only one vote, per person.
So to the extent that you still maintain any barrier, however slight, and no matter its goal, to be unacceptable, then I’d say you and I do disagree on a major point.
My jealously concerning your handsome visage is of course well known to all, but as always, I do not let that personal burning ire interfere with my rigorously fair application of the facts to any given situation before us.
Bricker, you already conceded in post #16 of this thread that the lack of easy access to getting the state ID represented an unreasonable barrier.
If you agree the law is unreasonable then why are you protesting? Placing what you concede is an “unacceptable barrier” to the right to vote for black folks is hardly a trivial issue.
More to the point, why aren’t you willing to acknowledge that the intent behind this law is not to stop voter fraud but is a somewhat less than covert attempt to depress black voter turnout? Or are you going to deny that such a motive exists?