Show good faith by withdrawing or defending your absurd claim in post 303. If you want to claim it was made facetiously, that’ll count, too; we’ll just tell you not to give up your day job.
Consider that post 388 is only tl;dr for someone raised on a diet of Twitter, and push yourself to the limit by reading its epic Melvilleian length, then answering the questions contained therein.
If you don’t actually want an answer to your question, of course, you’re welcome to fulfill my expectations of you.
How many locations offer said photo ID cards? I seem to recall, in Wisconsin, not all DMVs offered them. Only specific ones, few of which were in Democratic strongholds. Further, they were open only one day a week… and not on weekends.
Further, it’s not uncommon for birth certificates to have the name misspelled on it, compared to the social security card. Which means you have to fix one or the other. Which takes a lot more effort.
Would you consider one location per county, open one day per month, elections less than a year away, an inconvenience? I’m wondering how many cards they could physically process in 12 months, given average speed of DMV, compared to population. I’d say it’d be in the mid-hundreds, max.
The question of relative convenience might be best left moot. I mean, for one thing, when did we start to measure prospective voters on their laziness? Since when is laziness un-American? We say necessity is the mother of invention, well, the father is laziness. The first TV in the first American living room made the remote control inevitable. More money is made by people who can talk than by people who lift things, hammer things, protect things, doing the things we profess to admire.
And, of course, not all lazy people are to be equally effected, are they? Some folks don’t even have to go to all the trouble of being personally lazy, they have people for that. They can pay for it, the just reward of the ambition, frugality and perseverance of their grandparents. As is so often the case, they are exempt from any such judgment.
Was that strategic? Were the SC Republicans mindful of this approach? They might have preferred to make Democrats illegal period, but took this tack because taking out the lazy demographic would crush the Democrats? If so, it offers an intriguing if repulsive view of their mindset, since it kinda insinuates the Hate That Dare Not Speak Its Name.
“We don’t have to run 'em out of town, we just have to discourage the lazy…Democrats!”
And I’m explaining that in at least one great State in the US of A, the citizens of North Dakota disagree with you and one can vote simply by signing a voter affidavit that they comply with the requirements. No proof of citizenship needed. Here’s a pdf link: http://www.nd.gov/eforms/Doc/sfn17343.pdf
It would also be easy enough for a voter to register in North Dakota and in another State. Why are you not up in arms about that potential voter fraud?
In matters of Law the Supreme Court can say whatever it wants. It is the nature of law that there has to be a final arbiter at some point and the Supreme Court is it.
I am going to guess that at least some people think that it is not unjust to ask people who are voting to provide some proof that they have the right to vote.
Not really sure that this is a convincing argument. Some court says so the matter is settled, no debate or contrary opinions are persuasive?
I believe they are free. Sure you have to get your ass to the DMV and get your picture taken but I don’t believe the state charges you a dime. If it did, it would amount to a poll tax and would be knocked out pretty much right out of the gate.
Public opinions are not supposed to have much influence on constitutional rights
I am pretty sure that rights are supposed to be protected from the vagaries of public opinion. Tyranny of the majority and all that. In the state of South Carolina it was once public opinion that blacks couldn’t vote.
Generally true, except in former Jim Crow states. Disparate impact does seem to matter when you are talking about states that have a history of deliberately excluding blacks from the franchise.
And that argument doesn’t carry as much water in South Carolina as it might in New Jersey.
And the law in all its majesty forbids both rich and poor from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges.
I agree that voters should be able to prove that they are eligible (not all US citizens are eligible). What form that proof of eligibility is up for debate, when that proof needs to be shown can be up for debate, how long should the grandfather period be if rules get changed is up for debate, how to treat felons, etc. I’m a simple guy, there should be one set of rules for all Americans. Not one set for Nevadans and a different set for Georgans. We are one nation and the rules for electing our President should be uniform with uniform set of criteria and enforcement.
You want to enforce voter ID for elections to prevent the threat of fraud, then come back with real suggestions on how to do it in such a way as to not disenfranchise voters or potential voters. Let me phrase it a different way, come back with suggestions on how to actually address the problem that does not give an unfair advantage to the Republican party.
Good. Then we agree that when people whine that SOME proof is needed and call that “partisan advantage” that’s bunk.
Voter ID, at the time of voting. If you asked me, probably a passport is the best, since non-citizens have drivers licenses and Social Security cards as well. After all, passports are required to exercise the other “absolute” citizenship right. Unless you think that requiring the passport to enter United States violates US citizens’ rights?
And no, I don’t think it should be a federal law. Each state should decide on its own. That’s what states are for - to regulate intrastate things. Of which voting is one.
Let us imagine that we both agree that literacy tests were a valid exclusion from voting. I know we don’t both agree with that, because I don’t, so even if you did, we wouldn’t. Agree.
But even if it were legitimate, the manner in which it was applied in the Deep South, as a tool for racial discrimination in the voting place, would still be wrong.
You shrug off partisan redistricting plans as business as usual, yet scream and tear your hair about dead people on voting rolls. But the first is clearly partisan corruption, while the second might well be nothing more than poor bookkeeping. Yours is an oddly fractured set of political ethics.
Why do you have to inject partisan advantage? Some proof is needed that you are both a State resident and a US Citizen (unless you live in North Dakota). But what that proof is and the implementation of same should not be left up to partisan hacks.
Passport is Federal Gubmint. So, let me get this straight, you are opposed to a National ID but all for requiring a US Passport as proof of citizenship?
Not sure how easy it is to get a passport. My kids had to do an in person submission of their passport form and birth certificates (in our case consular report of birth abroad) at the local post office, but not sure if all post offices offer this service.
If a state decides on that as the method, I am fine with it.
It is a bit harder than getting the drivers-license-like state ID. And it costs a lot more. But if it is proof of citizenship you want, the passport is it.
Good, then that means we can get rid of that pesky absentee voting thing, since they cannot provide ID when they vote. Since most voter fraud originates via absentee balloting, I assume you’ll be willing to sacrifice the franchise of overseas military personnel? Because voter fraud is that critical of a problem, right?
So you believe it’s reasonable to force a US citizen to acquire a passport if they have no intention of ever leaving the country?
Yes, definitely. Absentee voting is even more open to fraud.
Why? Set up the voting booths at military bases overseas.
“Force”? No. There are other ways to prove citizenship - birth certificate+driver’s license for example. But there should be proof of citizenship in order to vote. Because only citizens can vote.
The thrust of the article is that the Supreme Court may end tossing out Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional. There were procedural issues that would force the Supreme Court to rule on this, instead of dodging it.