Supreme Court Won’t Consider Challenge To Wisconsin Voter ID Law
Of all the issues dear to the left, I find this one of the most ridiculous. The idea that getting a form of ID is an extreme hardship is completely absurd. I’m actually surprised that providing proper ID to show you are who you say you are when voting hasn’t always been a requirement.
It’s not ridiculous if we pretend the motivation behind law is fighting the non-existent problem of voter fraud…
It’s not ridiculous if we consider that the Constitution was amended specifically to prevent these kind of shenanigans;
[QUOTE=Some useless piece of paper]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
[/QUOTE]
Are you saying there has never been a case of voter fraud?
Photo ID for voting is free. Argument null & void.
I think it’s so rare that it’s never come within a million miles of affecting the outcome of a modern election.
It’s about vote suppression, pure and simple.
When I lived in Connecticut, I’d stroll into the polling place, they would ask my name and address, check me off a list and into the booth I went. It was civilization itself.
American exceptionalism.
“Other countries require ID to vote, but we don’t; we’re special.”
And holding an ID card in your hand while telling them would be that big of a hassle why? All they have to do is glance at it to confirm you are who you say you are. Might add an additional 1/2 second to the process, if that.
No it isn’t. Oh, you may not have to pay a fee for the ID, but I read your link.
First, you have to go to the DMV. How many hours of work will you miss, and how much will that cost you? How far away is the nearest DMV office? Is there public transit to it from where you live, or do you have to get a taxi? Travel and time off work costs money.
Second, you have to provide a birth certificate or passport or certificate of naturalization. All these things cost money. If you were born many years ago or in a different state, how easy will it be to get that birth certificate?
You also need proof of identity (like a photo ID!) and residency.
The whole thing is a mess of costly, time-consuming (and time IS money) hoops for people who aren’t relatively well-off. If you want it to be truly free, you have to also make it easy. This process is designed to make it difficult for voters who don’t vote for the Republicans.
And 50 years ago the idea that a simple literacy test, or a minimal poll tax was an extreme hardship was absurd to those who wanted to suppress the vote.
Not including the money it costs to get your birth certificate and other papers in order.
Not including the several hours you need to spend on a work day waiting at the DMV for a ID that you only use once every two years, and will expire after two elections.
For most people you are right it is no problem, but there are non-insignificant numbers for which it is. It would be a no brainer to help them out except for the fact that the vast majority of them tend to vote the wrong way, and so the more road blocks the better.
Why bother, though? Local precincts, IME, cover very small areas and a few hundred voters. It would be ridiculous (and risky) to go in and lie about who you are, since chances are high that the real person of that name would come in and protest.
Most of the elections here in Colorado (all but the generals) are now mail-in. How much potential for fraud is there for that? Why don’t I have to submit a copy of my ID with my mail-in ballot? What stops me from voting on my wife’s ballot (or vice-versa)? I bet I know why: because people who vote mail-in are non-transient, white, non-poor voters.
There is a reason that voter ID laws have been exclusively passed by GOP legislative action. Because they can’t win on the merits, they change the rules.
None of these things actually equate to being a poll tax. And the presumption that there is more than a handful of voters who don’t already have a valid form of identification is preposterous.
Stipulate that your side lost on this one and move on to take ludicrous positions on another issue.
Funny thing though. The ID law was suspended for the 2014 elections during it’s legal challenge and quite a few Republicans won in Wisconsin by landslides.
Registering to vote takes time and effort, too. I say we do away with the requirement to register prior to voting.
Before I attempt to argue with you, I would like to get some reliable estimation of cognitive capacity. Saves time.
So, do you actually believe that to be a strong argument?
Here’s an (admittedly a little stale) analysis of claims that up to 11% of eligible voters have no photo ID.
The upshot is that it’s not a wildly out of line claim, but that actual for actual registered voters, it’s closer to a tenth of that. The point being that a lot of people on the margins don’t even bother to register, and a lot more of them don’t have ID.
So from a public policy perspective, should we be putting up more barriers to voting, or should we make it easier?
It’s now obvious that state legislatures can pass more laws demanding that voters produce a photo ID, if they follow the Wisconsin Voter ID law. Democrats are still allowed to ineffectively complain about the ruling.
*Supreme Court Won’t Consider Challenge To Wisconsin Voter ID Law
Wisconsin’s law was passed by the legislature in 2011 and signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Last year, a federal district judge declared it unconstitutional, but in September a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. The Supreme Court blocked the law from taking effect ahead of the election, as absentee ballots already had been mailed containing no information about the need to present photo identification*.
The voters in non-Presidential election years skew older, whiter, and more conservative, so that’s not particularly surprising. Voter ID laws are meant to have an effect on the margins in higher turnout (and closer) elections.
No? It costs money and time for some to get ID. It costs money for a poll tax. Without knowing how much time and money, how can you say they don’t equate? For all you know, a poll tax might be cheaper.
I presume no voters have a valid form of identification.
We can settle this right now. What percentage of eligible voters have a valid form of identification? And why does that matter anyway?
It also costs money to establish a residence. It costs money to eat which is required to live which is required to vote. Should eating be free lest it fall into the poll tax trap? This line of reasoning is not sound. Voter ID is not a poll tax. It may or may not be a good idea, but whatever it is, it is not a poll tax.