Why is the Justice Department entitled to draft documents?
Why would the Justice Department need to confirm the specific claim in request #3?
Why, the confidence of the electorate, of course! I should think you would be fraught with concern about the confidence of the minority voter. So long as there is no open clarity about the actual facts, dark suspicions are likely to remain. Perfectly justified suspicions, as it happens.
They are conducting the people’s business, and they are accountable. If there is a justifiable necessity for secrecy, let them state it. If they cannot, let’s see what’s what, here.
Maybe there is no such information, no such comparison having been made. OK, if that’s the truth, just say so. Nothing illegal about not being curious, nothing unConstitutional about not asking a question. One might very well draw inferences as to the reason why there is no such data, because no such information was desired, or deemed significant. They didn’t care to find out.
And if they did, that is even more significant, isn’t it? Then we would have the value system, to some degree, we would know how many hindered voters is acceptable to reduce the number of fraudulent voters from zero to zilch.
Some reason they shouldn’t be asked? And if anyone was authorized to ask such questions, about voting in federal elections, wouldn’t that be the Dept of Justice?
You know, just so we all feel more confident.
Ok, but why is the Justice Department entitled to draft documents, and why would the Justice Department need to confirm the specific claim in request #3?
See, that’s the trouble with insinuating questions, no one can be quite sure what your objection might be, or even if you have one. Would everything else be totally hunky-dory if they dropped #3?
You have problems with the density of my prose? I have a problem with you insinuating and implying shit you aren’t willing to substantiate.
Got something to say? Well, howzabout you just say it? Or, alternatively, have a nice cuppa.
Yeah a lot of the recent supreme court cases have been bullshit. Even the Obamacare decision was bullshit and that one fell my way.
But lets look at marion county. In marion county, there was no evidence that the law was intended to disadvantage any class. In Pennsylvania i believe there is, isn’t there?
Virginia recently passed a voter ID law that passed DOJ muster. They permit the use of utility bills and bank account statements as identification and give you a provisional ballot if you have no ID and you can present evidence of your identification after the election.
What evidence exists in Pennsylvania that the law is intended to disadvantage a particular class?
davidm said, “States have some level of obligation (not necessarily legal, but ethical) to be cooperative on an issue like this.”
I am asking if states have an ethical obligation of some kind to provide draft documentation as opposed to final documentation, and if they have an ethical oblication to answer question #3, a question which does not appear calculated to gain any informaiton about compliance with the law.
Well, TG, IANAL, but seems to me they would like an insight into the thinking that went into the making of this law. Did they investigate in any way, seek data and information about the impact these laws might have? Did it never occur to them that these laws might disproportionately affect a segment of the population? Did it occur to them that this segment might be somewhat predictable in terms of voting? Did they discuss that as they drafted their documents, were amendments made relative to this sort of a question?
By what process did they arrive at the finished product, what motivations are revealed as the work progresses. Is there some reason that needs to be kept secret? A legitimate reason?
Can’t see that the ethical concern here is weighty. Think a butterfly could swoop down, snatch it up and carry it away…
Well, the law of the land says that if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for its creation. So the motivations of the drafters are, as a matter of law, irrelevant.
I assume, of course, that the “ethical” interest the state has in cooperating with DoJ is to aid them in discovering violations of the law. So I’ll ask again: what reason does the DoJ have for requesting draft documents?
And what if your “valid neutral justifications” are not valid? And what if the crafters of this legislation knew, or had reason to know, it wasn’t valid? Should they have made an effort to determine the validity? If they didn’t make such an effort, does that reflect on their bony fidos? Because if your neutral justification isn’t valid, this move is only a sordid partisan effort.
Perhaps revealing the corrupt nature of this law is a partisan move. But that’s entirely OK, because it has a valid neutral justifications, the transparency of our legislative process. But your valid neutral justification is the prevention of a problem that does not exist, you might just as reasonably argue that Democrat leaning voters can be hindered because it will prevent citizens from being injured in unicorn stampedes.
TL:DR: your “valid neutral justifications” is horseshit. Legalistic sophistry attempting to polish a turd. Hard to believe that you can type it with a straight face.
The report Bricker alluded to way back in post 149 said the following:
So, in order for the ID system to be valid according to evidence used in the case law Bricker was happy to cite, the ID systems must be shown to increase, rather than impede participation.
The report is also happy to use the term disenfranchise, which Bricker seems to be allergic to.
So, where are the mobile offices providing free IDs in the underserved communities?
But they are valid. I say so. And luckily, everyone who matters in our nation’s decision-making process agrees with me: legislature, governor, courts, majority of the people.
Maybe. It’s a clever argument. Let’s see how many of the decision makers agree.
I don’t agree. And luckily…
Would you please quote the part of the decision that says, “Everything in the Cox-Baker Report must be implemented?”
Not there?
Not me. Talk to elucidator..
So where is the mandate for them?
My 2 cents anecdote.
I recently moved to a state with a voter ID requirement. Until recently, I was mildly in favor of voter ID laws. I thought “who doesn’t have ID?”
I went to get my new drivers license recently. I took time off work. I needed to bring a ton of documentation with me – multiple bills, lease, passport, AND my SS card. Drove to the office (its several miles outside of town, not walking distance. On a bus route but the bus only comes by every hour and a half). Filled out formed. Waited in line. Gave them the forms, got them stamped, waited in another line to turn them in. Finally got to the front and was told that I needed to pay using a money order or check (no cash or credit). This requirement was not posted anywhere.
Since I’m not usually in the habit of carrying my checkbook around, and didn’t have a money order, I had to leave to do this another day. All in all, wasted time equaled several hours.
Now, I have a job where I can take off time whenever I want. I have a car I can drive wherever I want. I have a checking account. I have a passport and bills to justify my residence.
What if I was poor, no car, had a sh*t job working under someone’s thumb for 8-12 hours a day? Maybe with no bank account? With the bus, this would be an all day thing - now I’m out a days pay (if they gave me time off at all). And now I have to do it all over again.
I can easily see how someone would say “screw it”. Coupled with the fact that almost no voter identity fraud has ever been recorded, I can only come to the conclusion that Voter ID laws will disenfranchise people, and that they very well are likely designed with that purpose in mind.
About what? “Disenfranchise”? Said dozens of times, the word doesn’t matter, it isn’t relevant. The goal is clearly to hinder and inconvenience. Pretty sure you know that. Not important, but dishonest and evasive.
Do you mind if I ask which state this is? I have never heard of any state refusing to accept cash.
No, they are not, and your own premises belie your conclusion. You offer us “voter confidence” as a shining goal to be cherished, and to be sacrificed for. Happily for you, all the sacrifice you propose takes place on the opposite partisan pole from your own. You are not offering a shared sacrifice, but one carefully tailored to your partisan ends.
But if “voter confidence” is such an ideal, what do you offer for the “voter confidence” of those people who are hindered and harassed by these laws? What can you say to them to erase the insult of being regarded suspiciously? What about their “voter confidence”?
These laws bolster the confidence of white Republican voters, who seem to believe against all evidence that voter fraud is rampant. Of course, it is not, any more than Bigfoot is riding Nessie around the lake. Their voter confidence is being pandered to, while the lesser folk have their voter confidence bruised and battered.
Goalpost shift. You asked me to justify the Justice Dept.'s request for information, I did, so you shifted the ground. Are you asking me how long it will take for me to convince Republicans to do what is right? Not much luck, so far, I fear…
Do you think you could impose a “three gloat per thread” maximum on yourself? Just a thought…
Goes around comes around, Slick. Your turn in the barrel will come.
To them I say, “Sucks to be someone who feels hindered and harassed by perfectly reasonable requirements.”
No, not a shift, just a less than clear concession. I agree you justified it, very cleverly, and said so. But to be clear, I am saying it now even more explicitly.
Then I will take it with my usual aplomb.
The Illinois Department of Revenue only accepts checks or money orders. They generally deal with taxes and business licenses. The Illinois Secretary of State’s office issues driver’s licenses and vehicle plates. They accept cash, checks, credit and debit cards. No idea why the difference.
Right, but this data point supports my idea that no state’s DMV will not accept cash.