# 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:** 2
### Author:  [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/21 "2011-12-25T17:55:06Z")
> [@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?
Your complaint only counts as 3/5th of a complaint. Come back when you have a full point to make
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/22 "2011-12-25T18:24:09Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> Your complaint only counts as 3/5th of a complaint. Come back when you have a full point to make
WTF is that supposed to mean?
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/23 "2011-12-25T18:40:11Z")
Go read the damn Constitution some time and find out, **John**. Then move on to the history of civil rights recognition and enforcement. The irony might then become apparent to you. Try to keep up here, willya?
Right call, 14th Amendment protections are real and do matter. Perhaps now **Bricker** will tell why, other than to satisfy his partisanism-above-constitutionalism sentiments, he thinks it will be overturned?
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/24 "2011-12-25T19:07:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> Go read the damn Constitution some time and find out, **John**. Then move on to the history of civil rights recognition and enforcement. The irony might then become apparent to you. Try to keep up here, willya?
Gee, **Elvis**. I thought [the amendments](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) were part of the constitution. But I guess I’ve been wrong all these years, and the 3/5ths rule still applies. :rolleyes:
At any rate, I don’t see anything unconstitutional about requiring an ID to register to vote, as long as the states make one available for free.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/25 "2011-12-25T19:12:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#):
>
> The law is constituional under _Crawford_.
>
> The Justice Department can do this to South Carolina, but not to, say Minnesota – or Indiana.
>
> The state can challenge this in federal court, they intend to, and I’ll take anyone’s bet here, up to, say, $500 total, that the Justice Department’s decision will be reversed.
>
> Any takers?
I won’t take you up on your wager, since I don’t gamble, but I’m sure we all appreciate the sentiment. I would think that Minnesota may not have conditions where the law strongly impacts minority voters.
For instance, if Minnesota has most minorities possessing the correct IDs, the laws may not be a problem there. So for SC it is an undue burden keeping minorities away from the polls and in MN it isn’t.
Doesn’t that make sense?
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/26 "2011-12-25T19:35:05Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> Your complaint only counts as 3/5th of a complaint. Come back when you have a full point to make
This would be rather inflammatory if it was on-topic; since it isn’t, it’s worse. Think harder next time: the 3/5ths clause has nothing to do with disenfranchisement. You’re thinking of other issues like poll taxes and grandfather clauses. In the future, make sure you have your facts straight before you say something like this.
---
### Author:  [@ladyfoxfyre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ladyfoxfyre)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/27 "2011-12-25T19:36:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> This would be rather inflammatory if it was on-topic; since it isn’t, it’s worse. Think harder next time: the 3/5ths clause has nothing to do with disenfranchisement. You’re thinking of other issues like poll taxes and grandfather clauses. In the future, make sure you have your facts straight before you say something like this.
Really? The 3/5ths clause doesn’t have anything to do with disenfranchisement? Anything at all?
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/28 "2011-12-25T19:40:25Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Really? The 3/5ths clause doesn’t have anything to do with disenfranchisement? Anything at all?
No, especially not in the context in which it was brought up. It goes without saying that it was an element of slavery, which disenfranchised millions of people. It was dehumanizing. But the clause applied only to slaves and was used in apportioning Congressional representation. It wasn’t used to prevent free blacks from voting. Poll taxes and grandfather clauses were used to prevent black citizens from voting after the end of slavery or to make sure whites could vote where blacks couldn’t. The clause has nothing to do with identification or voting rights, so it’s a bad example. I don’t want to get bogged down in the argument, but the point is that if you’re going to say something like that, you’d better make sure it clearly applies to the topic - and in this case it doesn’t.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/29 "2011-12-25T19:42:58Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Really? The 3/5ths clause doesn’t have anything to do with disenfranchisement? Anything at all?
No, it doesn’t. Slaves and women could not vote. Slaves were counted as 3/5 person because the Southerners wanted more representatives in Congress. The anti-slave north was against that clause. Slaves would not have had the right to vote no matter what fraction of a person they were counted. In fact, the Southerners wanted them counted 100%. The 3/5 decision was a compromise between 100% and 0%.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/30 "2011-12-25T19:54:19Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Really? The 3/5ths clause doesn’t have anything to do with disenfranchisement? Anything at all?
Correct.
“Disenfranchise” means depriving of the right to vote. Whom did the 3/5th clause deprive of the right to vote?
If anything, the clause “super-enfranchised” the voters in states in which slaves were a significant portion of the population, giving their vote a higher weight than the other states’ voters’.
---
### Author:  [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/31 "2011-12-25T21:02:22Z")
> [@ladyfoxfyre](#):
>
> Really? The 3/5ths clause doesn’t have anything to do with disenfranchisement? Anything at all?
In the broader sense of disenfranchisement being part of the system that refused to accept that blacks were fully human or could be fully citizens. It’s the most pernicious such element written into the Constitution itself, though, the document we’ve been discussing, so it has pretty good symbolic value.
**John** , go look up poll taxes and literacy tests, while you’re off learning about civil rights history. Perhaps you can find a high school teacher to go over it with you, or at least recommend a tutor. Then perhaps the context of this latest disenfranchisement effort will become clearer to you.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/32 "2011-12-25T21:07:23Z")
What irks me most is pretending that this is a legitimate concern, as if voter fraud was a dire threat that required drastic action. For all practical purposes, there is no voter fraud, there is no problem to be solved, and if there were, this would be the wrong solution.
Some folks like to argue in favor as though it were a legitimate effort, which raises hypocrisy to new heights of posturing pretense. The problem this legislation is intended to address is the unfortunate tendency of minorities to vote in their own interests. Once again, they want to play Republican Poker: you get five cards, they get seven, yours are all dealt face up and they get to draw twice.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/33 "2011-12-25T21:39:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#):
>
> In the broader sense of disenfranchisement being part of the system that refused to accept that blacks were fully human or could be fully citizens. It’s the most pernicious such element written into the Constitution itself, though, the document we’ve been discussing, so it has pretty good symbolic value.
Nonsense. The good guys (anti-slavery north) wanted them to be counted as 0/5ths. The bad guys (pro-slavery south) wanted them counted as 5/5ths. For someone who is constantly telling other people to read history books, you have a poor understanding of the history of this clause. Slaves were fucking slaves, for God’s sake. Whether they were counted as 3/5ths of a person simply for the purpose of determining the number of representatives has absolutely nothing to do with their lot in life or their ability to vote. As noted, women were counted as 5/5ths, and they couldn’t vote. Indians weren’t counted at all (if they weren’t taxed).
> [@](#):
>
> **John** , go look up poll taxes and literacy tests, while you’re off learning about civil rights history. Perhaps you can find a high school teacher to go over it with you, or at least recommend a tutor. Then perhaps the context of this latest disenfranchisement effort will become clearer to you.
I know exactly why the GOP is pushing for these laws. But that is not relevant in terms of whether they are constitutional or not. Perhaps you, being the constitutional scholar that you are, can point to the part of the constitution you think they violate. Like I said, as long as the state provides an ID without charge, I don’t see a constitutional issue.
And you can always take **Bricker** up on his bet if you think you know better.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/34 "2011-12-25T22:34:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> Nonsense. The good guys (anti-slavery north) wanted them to be counted as 0/5ths. The bad guys (pro-slavery south) wanted them counted as 5/5ths. For someone who is constantly telling other people to read history books, you have a poor understanding of the history of this clause. Slaves were fucking slaves, for God’s sake. Whether they were counted as 3/5ths of a person simply for the purpose of determining the number of representatives has absolutely nothing to do with their lot in life or their ability to vote. As noted, women were counted as 5/5ths, and they couldn’t vote. Indians weren’t counted at all (if they weren’t taxed).
>
> I know exactly why the GOP is pushing for these laws. But that is not relevant in terms of whether they are constitutional or not. Perhaps you, being the constitutional scholar that you are, can point to the part of the constitution you think they violate. Like I said, as long as the state provides an ID without charge, I don’t see a constitutional issue.
>
> And you can always take **Bricker** up on his bet if you think you know better.
None of that other crap is mentioned in the Constitution either. All the constitution says is that you can’t be discriminated against. And if discrimination can be found, it thus violates the law.
He already pointed to the 14th amendment, anyways. You admit that the purpose of the law is to disenfranchise people. Why is it that the judges are too stupid to figure this out, and thus realize it violates the law?
And, no, I won’t be taking Bricker’s bet as I don’t want to go to hell (not that I have the money anyways. And he knows that, hence why he makes these ridiculous claims.)
---
### Author:  [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/35 "2011-12-25T22:37:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> At any rate, I don’t see anything unconstitutional about requiring an ID to register to vote, as long as the states make one available for free.
So you are advocating a law that would require the state to issue a photo ID at no charge when a person registers to vote? Ok, fine. I can get on board with that and I think most people who have objected to the law in SC could too.
However, I doubt those who put the SC law in place in to begin with would find that acceptable.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/36 "2011-12-25T22:39:34Z")
> [@Terr](#):
>
> Correct.
>
> “Disenfranchise” means depriving of the right to vote. Whom did the 3/5th clause deprive of the right to vote?
>
> If anything, the clause “super-enfranchised” the voters in states in which slaves were a significant portion of the population, giving their vote a higher weight than the other states’ voters’.
It disenfranchised black people by specifically noting that slaves could be treated differently. Had it not been in there, one could have argued that all constitutional protections even went to slaves. Instead, we needed an amendment.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/37 "2011-12-25T22:47:35Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> …And, no, I won’t be taking Bricker’s bet as I don’t want to go to hell (not that I have the money anyways. And he knows that, hence why he makes these ridiculous claims.)
Wait a second here, you mean if you make a bet with a lawyer, you have to go to Hell _with_ them? Seems a mite harsh.
---
### Author:  [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/38 "2011-12-25T22:48:28Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> It disenfranchised black people by specifically noting that slaves could be treated differently. Had it not been in there, one could have argued that all constitutional protections even went to slaves. Instead, we needed an amendment.
It didn’t “disenfranchise black people”. It didn’t take away their right to vote. The 3/5ths had to do with how the representative seats were apportioned, not with who could vote and who couldn’t.
As for “we needed an amendment” - the amendment you mean was the 14th - “Representatives shall be apportioned … counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed…”. But the 14th didn’t give the former slaves the right to vote. That was done by the 15th amendment - which had nothing to do with the “3/5ths” thing.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/39 "2011-12-25T22:48:47Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> It disenfranchised black people by specifically noting that slaves could be treated differently. Had it not been in there, one could have argued that all constitutional protections even went to slaves. Instead, we needed an amendment.
Uhm, no, one could not. Read the text. It specifically calls out “free Persons”. Had the phrase not been there, slaves would not have been counted for purposes of Representation. Period. It had nothing to do with who could vote or not. White women were counted exactly the same as white men, and yet black men got the franchise before white women did.
---
### Author:  [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)
#### Post date: [December 25, 2011, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222/40 "2011-12-25T23:18:24Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#):
>
> So you are advocating a law that would require the state to issue a photo ID at no charge when a person registers to vote? Ok, fine. I can get on board with that and I think most people who have objected to the law in SC could too.
>
> However, I doubt those who put the SC law in place in to begin with would find that acceptable.
You’re wrong. It’s part of [the law.](http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/3003.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> Special identification card provisions revised
>
> SECTION 6. Section 56-1-3350 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 277 of 2010, is further amended to read:
>
> "Section 56-1-3350. (A) Upon application by a person five years of age or older who is a resident of South Carolina, the department shall issue a special identification card as long as:
>
> (1) the application is made on a form approved and furnished by the department; and
>
> (2) the applicant presents to the person issuing the identification card a birth certificate or other evidence acceptable to the department of his name and date of birth.
>
> (B)(1) The fee for the issuance of the special identification card is five dollars for a person between the ages of five and sixteen years.
>
> (2) An identification card must be free to a person aged seventeen years or older.
Emphasis added.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sc-voter-id-law-shot-down/607222.md?page=3)