# 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:** 19
### Author:  [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/361 "2012-01-02T03:33:44Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Detect it and prosecute it. At state level. There are already laws on the books that allow states to use SS#s at voter registration time. Let the states coordinate SS# crosschecks with other states.
In other words, “We aren’t worried about the [del]niggers[/del]fraudulent voters crossing state lines. We just want to make sure they can’t vote [del]for Democrats[/del]fraudulently in their home state.”
---
### Author:  [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/362 "2012-01-02T03:42:37Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Detect it and prosecute it. At state level. There are already laws on the books that allow states to use SS#s at voter registration time. Let the states coordinate SS# crosschecks with other states.
So fraudulent voting at the State level requires new laws but if someone is registered in multiple States then it’s cool to just use existing laws. Gotcha ya.
Fighting ignorance and all, States don’t cross check social security numbers - when then get them. The few States I checked (California and Minnesota) don’t require SS# for voter registration. Here’s one cite from the [Minnesota Secretary of State](http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=591)), and I won’t bother providing more since you just hand wave cites away. Given there are 50 States there may be one or some that actually cross check all voters with the SS database but I’ll leave that to you to prove. I couldn’t find any that say they cross check all voter ID with the SS database, only the ones that register using a SS# (instead of a drivers license or state ID card).
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/363 "2012-01-02T04:21:34Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#):
>
> In other words, “We aren’t worried about the [del]niggers[/del]fraudulent voters crossing state lines. We just want to make sure they can’t vote [del]for Democrats[/del]fraudulently in their home state.”
In other words, states should decide for themselves how they take care of this.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/364 "2012-01-02T04:23:10Z")
> [@China\_Guy](#):
>
> So fraudulent voting at the State level requires new laws but if someone is registered in multiple States then it’s cool to just use existing laws. Gotcha ya.
Since no new laws are required to prevent that from happening, yes.
> [@](#):
>
> Fighting ignorance and all, States don’t cross check social security numbers - when then get them.
They don’t but they can.
> [@](#):
>
> The few States I checked (California and Minnesota) don’t require SS# for voter registration.
They don’t but they can.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/365 "2012-01-02T04:57:00Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#):
>
> T’other way 'round.
>
> \*\*Edit: to nitpick, the **people in** Texas and Tennessee should have union protection, as they most likely would if there were whole-country voting for representatives in a parliamentary system. \*\* I don’t give a crap about what covers Texas, Ma Bell, unicorns, or other imaginary entities.
Considering that for the the 14 of the past 18 years the House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republicans with people like John Boehner and Newt Gingrich as Speakers of the House, that strikes me as a fairly questionable belief not grounded in fact.
---
### Author:  [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/366 "2012-01-02T14:43:39Z")
> [@Zakalwe](#):
>
> In other words, “We aren’t worried about the [del]niggers[/del]fraudulent voters crossing state lines. We just want to make sure they can’t vote [del]for Democrats[/del]fraudulently in their home state.”
Winner.
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/367 "2012-01-02T15:59:33Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Considering that for the the 14 of the past 18 years the House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republicans with people like John Boehner and Newt Gingrich as Speakers of the House, that strikes me as a fairly questionable belief not grounded in fact.
The word “should” ought to clue you in that it was an opinion, not a belief. If you’re saying that the outcome I prefer is unlikely, well, you missed my suggestion that we move to a parliamentary system in which representatives are voted at large, rather than from districts. Even then I might not get the results I want. If that’s all you wanted to tell me, thanks!
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/368 "2012-01-02T16:53:13Z")
The problem could be fixed, if they wanted it fixed. Some sort of “outreach” effort, to ensure that persons without adequate documentation can be supplied with the required ID. First and foremost, registered voters who have voted recently but who would lack proper ID under the amended circumstances, would have first priority. Then, expand the effort to include people who wish to register to vote, but would be otherwise excluded.
It would need to be carefully done, of course, to ensure that no citizen who wanted to vote and is entitled to vote would be excluded, the “outreach” aspect of the effort would need to be emphasized. Start out easy, simply use the same criteria for voter registration as had been acceptable in the past, and gradually introduce stricter criteria so as not to exclude anyone. With the proviso that anyone who had already met criteria and registered are presumed to be legitimate, and the assurance that no further burdens would be placed on persons already registered.
Given the loudly proclaimed civic virtue of the SC Republicans, isn’t it odd that no such effort appears in the legislation? To my mind, it isn’t odd at all, as civic virtue is not the point of the exercise, but trimming the voter rolls of undesirable and unreliable voters is.
But if they really wanted to, they could do it. They don’t. That this is a partisan effort to ensure the continuing power of the Republican Party is as clear as the nose on your face. Or the color of the skin on the nose of your face.
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/369 "2012-01-02T16:57:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> The problem could be fixed, if they wanted it fixed. Some sort of “outreach” effort, to ensure that persons without adequate documentation can be supplied with the required ID.
Sure, we could just hire some organizers to go out into the community…Hey, wait a minute, that sounds like… _ACORN!!!_
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/370 "2012-01-02T16:59:01Z")
Never crossed my mind, but, now that you mention it, a splendid idea!
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/371 "2012-01-02T18:02:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> The problem could be fixed, if they wanted it fixed. Some sort of “outreach” effort, to ensure that persons without adequate documentation can be supplied with the required ID. First and foremost, registered voters who have voted recently but who would lack proper ID under the amended circumstances, would have first priority. Then, expand the effort to include people who wish to register to vote, but would be otherwise excluded.
Feel free to do it.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/372 "2012-01-02T18:17:57Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Considering that for the the 14 of the past 18 years the House of Representatives has been controlled by the Republicans with people like John Boehner and Newt Gingrich as Speakers of the House, that strikes me as a fairly questionable belief not grounded in fact.
What makes you think constitutional reform would result in the same makeup of Congress? The states are effectively gerrymanders that disproportionately favor rural white conservatives, giving them a lock on our political system unjustified by their relative numbers.
It’s an affront to democracy that the voters of Wyoming get 1/50th a share of the votes in the Senate and and 1/435th of votes in the House of Representatives. Under a reform one or more of these things might happen:
1. Wyoming would be absorbed into neighboring states
2. Representation in Congress would no longer be along state lines – district borders would be drawn regardless of state borders to equalize representation
3. Larger states would get more seats in order to make their representation proportional to their population. So, for example, if Wyoming gets one representative, California would get 13 more seats in the House of Representatives, to bring it up to 66.
In any case, there’s no reason to believe that a more democratic system on the national level would result in conservative control in the same way that it exists under the current system.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/373 "2012-01-02T18:26:40Z")
And that’s not even getting into other democratic reforms, such as mixed-member proportional representation with two-tiered (party and candidate) voting.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/374 "2012-01-02T19:37:09Z")
Well so much for the suggestion that we were “changing one thing” and that people weren’t effectively throwing out the Constitution.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/375 "2012-01-02T19:40:16Z")
Do you consider abolishing slavery to have been throwing out the Constitution?
---
### Author:  [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/376 "2012-01-02T19:52:27Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Well so much for the suggestion that we were “changing one thing” and that people weren’t effectively throwing out the Constitution.
The question was whether people have respect for the constitution. One can respect the constitution while talking about how to change it. Frankly, the idea that the massive technological and social changes over the past ~250 years wouldn’t require some changes is bizarre. It might work for religious fundamentalists who transfer their adoration of The Book onto governmental documents, but such a stiff definition of respect has no place among rationalists.
---
### Author:  [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/377 "2012-01-02T20:50:49Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Do you consider abolishing slavery to have been throwing out the Constitution?
Direct election of senators was a pretty major change as well.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/378 "2012-01-02T20:54:19Z")
> [@Acsenray](#):
>
> Do you consider abolishing slavery to have been throwing out the Constitution?
Putting through a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the ownership of slaves was a dramatically more minor change then abolishing fifty state governments, fifty court systems, several hundred departments of education, countless law enforcement agencies, fifty different departments of Labor, hundreds of other state departments which I can’t even think of and abolishing thousands if not tens of thousands of various state laws and imposing tens of thousands of laws on people who were unused to them.
To give one really minor example, Left Hand predicted the values of the people of Rhode Island and Massachussetts would be foisted on the people of Tennessee and Texas. I’m not sure how the people of Memphis and Austin will like being told they can’t buy alcohol from corner stores and that liquor stores will be closed on Sunday.
Perhaps it’s stupid of me to think this, but it seems to me that if the people of New Hampshire want to be able to buy beer and wine at supermarkets while the people of Rhode Island want businesses on Sunday to pay time and a half and for liquor stores to be closed on Sunday then so be it.
---
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/379 "2012-01-02T20:56:15Z")
> [@kenetic](#):
>
> Direct election of senators was a pretty major change as well.
Not remotely compared to what people have been advocating.
Neither change made the US government completely unrecognizeable.
---
### Author:  [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)
#### Post date: [January 2, 2012, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/380 "2012-01-02T20:57:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#):
>
> Putting through a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the ownership of slaves was a dramatically more minor change then abolishing fifty state governments, fifty court systems, several hundred departments of education, countless law enforcement agencies, fifty different departments of Labor, hundreds of other state departments which I can’t even think of and abolishing thousands if not tens of thousands of various state laws and imposing tens of thousands of laws on people who were unused to them.
Perhaps. Do you know anyone who is advocating this? I don’t.
> [@](#):
>
> Perhaps it’s stupid of me to think this, but it seems to me that if the people of New Hampshire want to be able to buy beer and wine at supermarkets while the people of Rhode Island want businesses on Sunday to pay time and a half and for liquor stores to be closed on Sunday then so be it.
Where has anyone said that they want this to happen?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=18)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=20)