# SC voter ID law shot down
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222
**Category:** Politics & Elections
**Created:** [December 23, 2011, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222 "2011-12-23T22:42:28Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 11
### Author:  [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/201 "2011-12-29T20:28:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Putting aside the fact that voter ID laws are crafted by the people’s representatives, and thus start with the strong presumption that they do reflect the will of the people, the issue of requiring voter IDs enjoys [high support](http://www.newsmax.com/US/Voter-ID-laws-discriminate/2011/12/20/id/421607) among the people.
Hardly need to point out that the linked survey does not include the actual questions asked, so kind of hard to make an absolute judgement as we all know that survey wording can significantly skew the answers. But you know that, right?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/202 "2011-12-29T21:51:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Hah! Hah! In my world, the measurable, reliable, repeatable fact is: voter ID laws are constitutional… You don’t agree. I get that…But that doesn’t make it anything more than your opinion, which, when weighed against the opinion of those people who can actually decide these things, ends up to be wholly lacking in persuasive force…Rail away agianst them, if you like. It doesn’t change a blessed thing.
Wherein the Counselor submits a Writ of Neener-neener.
Prematurely, perhaps, in that the Justice Dept., which has been known to dabble in things legalistic, is of a different opinion. Which may prove to be dispositive.
But I’m not quite certain as to your meaning here, a bit slippery. These people who will not be voting, they could vote last time, yes? So, what has happened in the intervening time, what crisis has arisen to necessitate this action? The grave crisis of voter fraud?
Are they too lazy to vote, then, if they won’t overcome these minor little problems? Perhaps, but will you cite the proper legal authority for “laziness” as a disqualifying factor in voting rights? Have we any reason to believe that people who are not facing such trivial burdens are not lazy? If we can disqualify people for being lazy, shouldn’t they face some sort of test?
So, then, it appears that only those persons who cannot _afford_ to be lazy are to be burdened, yes? But we simply must discriminate against them, due to the dreadful threat of voter fraud?
I find it hard to believe such a wholly rational person as yourself believes that fairy tale. But if you look me straight in the monitor and tell me that, yes, you do believe, I will simply lower my opinion of you in compliance.
So, what do you really believe, here? Do you believe that this action is entirely, or even substantially, motivated by the dreadful threat of voter fraud?
Or is it exactly what it appears to be? A legislative effort to ensure the continuing advantage of the Republican Party. Can there be any justification for such a partisan use of the machinery of legislation? Have you one to offer?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/203 "2011-12-29T22:11:56Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> When a question is asked why ID is required when buying beer or cigarettes, but not when you vote, you always get the response that beer and cigarette buying is not a right, whereas voting is.
>
> Well, let’s test that on a right that every US citizen has to enter United States from abroad. You would agree that’s a “right”, correct? How come an ID (passport if by air, other documents such as birth certificate or drivers license if by land) is required? What if the person entering has misplaced the passport and it was inconvenient for him to get another one, and he has no other documentation. Should he be allowed in without the documentation?
He will be. A bit of inconvenience, at most. He had to have a passport to _leave_. They keep records of stuff like that.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/204 "2011-12-29T22:41:59Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> People’s opinions can be shaped by the campaign of lies and misinformation that the right has been pushing for decades.
>
> There is no significant voting fraud. But people think it’s rampant because of liars on the right.
>
> Perception isn’t reality.
Who cares? To me, asking for voter ID before permitting a vote to be cast makes good sense even if there isn’t a current problem. According to you, we should wait until we have a close election and evidence of enough voter fraud to call the results into doubt before implementing reasonable safeguards. That seems shortsighted to me. Even if I were to conclude that not a single case of voter fraud has yet happened, the concept of verifying voter identity makes excellent common sense to me.
Your statement suggests the reason people favor this is because of lies on the part of the right. I contend people favor it because it makes sense, no matter what voter fraud has already happened.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/205 "2011-12-29T22:53:18Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> He will be. A bit of inconvenience, at most. He had to have a passport to _leave_. They keep records of stuff like that.
Link?
In order to enter, he has to provide proof of citizenship. If he doesn’t, he doesn’t get to exercise the right. Not just any right - the “absolute right”, as the courts put it, of being able to enter the United States.
Yet when the same requirement is made to exercise the voting right, which is also a “citizenship right”, suddenly it’s a horrible burden.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/206 "2011-12-29T23:39:47Z")
Restriction upon people attempting to enter the country are necessary, due to a clear and present danger posed by a lack of such regulations. This law is in reaction to a bogus threat, a chimera, it is nothing more than a rationalization masquerading as reason. They resemble each other in the same way a horse resembles a unicorn.
---
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/207 "2011-12-29T23:46:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Who cares? To me, asking for voter ID before permitting a vote to be cast makes good sense even if there isn’t a current problem. According to you, we should wait until we have a close election and evidence of enough voter fraud to call the results into doubt before implementing reasonable safeguards. That seems shortsighted to me. Even if I were to conclude that not a single case of voter fraud has yet happened, the concept of verifying voter identity makes excellent common sense to me.
I assume, therefore, that you have your shark repellant on you at all times?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 29, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/208 "2011-12-29T23:59:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> …Your statement suggests the reason people favor this is because of lies on the part of the right. I contend people favor it because it makes sense, no matter what voter fraud has already happened.
Or hasn’t happened, as the case may be. No, actually, “hasn’t” is pretty much it.
So, you contend that “people” favor this because it makes sense. And when did they discover this remarkable fact? And what an astonishing coincidence it is, isn’t it, that so many Republican dominated state legislators woke up to the same epiphany! And in the same approximate time frame!
Because that’s why they favor it, right? Because it makes such good sense, that’s the sole motivation? They had no idea this would fall upon likely Dem voters disproportionately? Nobody mentioned this to them?
Do they regret it, this unfortunate coincidence? Heard any such public declarations of regret, any determination to right that wrong? Some funded and approved effort to outreach to the disadvantaged, erase the barriers in their path?
Wouldn’t be that hard, now would it? Little more than a booth at your local post office, Wal Mart, Piggly Wiggly. You present yourself, give your name and address, any pertinent information that may help to identify Sammy Shmuck. They take a picture, one copy goes onto the card, one copy goes into the database. Bingo! Instant photo ID and perhaps, voter registration. And the same set of documentation that was valid before, remains so. A signed affidavit by a registered voter, for instance.
And if Sammy loses his card? His picture is still on the database. And if Sammy is totally bogus? There will still only be one. And he can only vote once.
I’m pretty sure this spitball idea can be improved upon. But is anybody but me trying? And if they don’t try, doesn’t that put their sincerity in doubt?
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/209 "2011-12-30T00:01:33Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> I assume, therefore, that you have your shark repellant on you at all times?
A lawyer can be a very good chum.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/210 "2011-12-30T00:06:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Restriction upon people attempting to enter the country are necessary, due to a clear and present danger posed by a lack of such regulations. This law is in reaction to a bogus threat, a chimera, it is nothing more than a rationalization masquerading as reason. They resemble each other in the same way a horse resembles a unicorn.
Really? What “clear and present danger” is posed by someone entering the country without providing proof that he’s a citizen? All those years that US didn’t require a passport to enter the country - did it get destroyed?
Both are “absolute” citizenship rights. One is contingent on proving your citizenship. The other isn’t.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/211 "2011-12-30T00:07:10Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Or hasn’t happened, as the case may be. No, actually, “hasn’t” is pretty much it.
I gave you a dozen or so links that show it it has happened.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/212 "2011-12-30T00:29:50Z")
Your citations, such as they were, have been adequately reviewed. I see no good reason to embarrass you by discussing it further.
---
### Author:  [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/213 "2011-12-30T00:45:26Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#):
>
> It always amuses me how some people rail against voter ID laws. I mean, you need an ID to buy cigarettes and booze, for God’s sake, so why not to vote?
IDs are not free. Make them 100% free and I’ll change my mind.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/214 "2011-12-30T00:57:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> Who cares? To me, asking for voter ID before permitting a vote to be cast makes good sense even if there isn’t a current problem. According to you, we should wait until we have a close election and evidence of enough voter fraud to call the results into doubt before implementing reasonable safeguards. That seems shortsighted to me. Even if I were to conclude that not a single case of voter fraud has yet happened, the concept of verifying voter identity makes excellent common sense to me.
>
> Your statement suggests the reason people favor this is because of lies on the part of the right. I contend people favor it because it makes sense, no matter what voter fraud has already happened.
You offered public opinion as a reason to have voter ID laws. I said that public opinion was manipulated by the right.
I’m just saying that public opinion is meaningless on factual arguments or issues of rights. Misinformation that someone holds dear isn’t a good reason to reduce other people’s rights.
How, in your opinion would the voter fraud (that could be stopped by voter ID laws) happen? Would you get a few thousand ideologues to race from polling place to polling place and vote in the names of other people, hoping that no one is caught and no one spills the beans? How many votes do you think this conspiracy would garner?
Is that what you’re fearing? By that kind of borderline-paranoia based over-reach, would you want guns outlawed and men forbidden to spend any amount of time alone with a girl under 18? Of course you wouldn’t support those things. But a law that reduces the number of minority, poor and young voters, well that would be okay?
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/215 "2011-12-30T02:09:31Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> I assume, therefore, that you have your shark repellant on you at all times?
No.
I often wonder what neutral readers think of these sorts of tactics. It is obvious to any observer that the possibility of voter fraud is present in any election, but the possibility of a shark attack in Topeka, Kansas is non-existent.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/216 "2011-12-30T02:16:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> You offered public opinion as a reason to have voter ID laws. I said that public opinion was manipulated by the right.
And I said that I didn’t agree.
> [@](#):
>
> I’m just saying that public opinion is meaningless on factual arguments or issues of rights. Misinformation that someone holds dear isn’t a good reason to reduce other people’s rights.
Factual arguments, yes. “Issues of rights?” No. Rights are those entitlements for which the denial has a remedy at law.
Public opinion has much to do with issues of rights.
> [@](#):
>
> Is that what you’re fearing? By that kind of borderline-paranoia based over-reach, would you want guns outlawed and men forbidden to spend any amount of time alone with a girl under 18? Of course you wouldn’t support those things. But a law that reduces the number of minority, poor and young voters, well that would be okay?
It depends on HOW the law reduces the number of voters. If the law is reasonable and neutral in its application, then the fact that it happens to impact minority, poor, and young voters is fine.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/217 "2011-12-30T02:46:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> It depends on HOW the law reduces the number of voters. If the law is reasonable and neutral in its application, then the fact that it happens to impact minority, poor, and young voters is fine.
That’s your opinion. Any law that reduces the participation of otherwise qualified voters is not fine, in my opinion. We should be striving to create a balance of the highest participation with the lowest voter fraud. Reasonable and neutral laws are a means, not an end.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/218 "2011-12-30T02:54:20Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> Your citations, such as they were, have been adequately reviewed. I see no good reason to embarrass you by discussing it further.
It helps if you also plug up your ears and hum loudly.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/219 "2011-12-30T02:55:41Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#):
>
> That’s your opinion. Any law that reduces the participation of otherwise qualified voters is not fine, in my opinion. We should be striving to create a balance of the highest participation with the lowest voter fraud. Reasonable and neutral laws are a means, not an end.
Correct. It is my opinion.
But guess who shares my opinion?
State legislators in sufficient numbers to make law, and federal judges in sufficient number to rule, bindingly, that the laws are Constitutionally sound, and voters in sufficient numbers to keep those legislators in office.
In short: my opinion is also fact in every way that matters.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [December 30, 2011, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/220 "2011-12-30T03:06:07Z")
I’m not sure that when debating the policy question of whether X should be a law that X is already a law is a valid argument.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=10)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=12)