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?
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?
He will be. A bit of inconvenience, at most. He had to have a passport to leave. They keep records of stuff like that.
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.
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.
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.
I assume, therefore, that you have your shark repellant on you at all times?
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?
A lawyer can be a very good chum.
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.
I gave you a dozen or so links that show it it has happened.
Your citations, such as they were, have been adequately reviewed. I see no good reason to embarrass you by discussing it further.
IDs are not free. Make them 100% free and I’ll change my mind.
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?
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.
And I said that I didn’t agree.
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.
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.
It helps if you also plug up your ears and hum loudly.
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.
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.