Thank you for supplying a good example of a non sequitur.
No they’re not. They are meant to prevent fraud and maintain the integrity of every election.
It cost money and time to get to the place to vote. Are you saying two fiddy for a bus ride is a poll tax? It costs money to buy clothing.
Are you saying it’s a poll tax if they won’t let you vote naked?
Demonstrate that there is significant fraud committed via in-person voter impersonation. The GOP is always complaining about burdensome regulation. I’m a liberal, and I think regulation should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. Are the costs to the individual voters ones who don’t already have ID outweighed by the benefit of catching some vanishingly small number of people voting fraudulently? And who is worried about the integrity of elections due to retail voter fraud? I’m personally more worried about wholesale voter fraud–rigged voting machines, for example. I’m pretty sure that was done by Democrats in the old mechanical voting machine days, so I don’t limit that to Republicans. Or mass absentee and mail-in ballot fraud–hard to detect, and no photo IDs required.
Actually, I think there should be many more precinct-level polling places so that everyone can walk to vote. And mail-in ballots for those who can’t (despite my reservations above, I don’t think there really is mail-in fraud, just that it’s at least as possible as in-person fraud). And, Election Day should be a national holiday, with only essential services allowed to open (no Election Day Sales Events at retail stores), or it should be a two or three day process with employers being required to provide a few hours of paid time-off for their employees to vote.
Exactly.
From the brief filed on behalf of Governor Walker:
Pretty much everyone who wants to vote already has the necessary documents.
Ah! So, we may conclude, without further study or question, that the situation in Milwaukee County is universal? That citizens in all states and counties enjoy precisely the same equality of voting access?
A free voter ID is not a poll tax, as the Supreme Court explicitly decided in Crawford v. Marion County.
If it were not possible to bend a legitimate law to a malign purpose, we would have no argument. Alas.
Voter ID laws also help to reduce turnout among the young and poor in a couple other ways.
Young people tend to move around a lot. They got their ID when they lived on 20 Main street, but they’ve move in with their bf/gf six months later and now live at 50 Maple Lane. It’s easy enough to update the voter registration, but a pain in the butt to change the driver’s license over, especially if they think they’ll be moving again within a year or so. Now, they may very well be able to vote with that ID with the old address. But, the voter has to check all the laws, and also assume that the clerk at the polls is also aware of all the rules. Naturally, the homeowner who has lived in their place doesn’t have this problem
There’s also a fear, even though it isn’t justified, that the clerk at the polls might run your id. A poorer person might be worried their license is suspended for unpaid parking or traffic tickets and avoid the polls. Wealthier people, upon getting a parking ticket or traffic citation, will utter a few choice words and then pay it.
You may conclude:
[ol]
[li]the legislature passed the law[/li][li]the governor signed it[/li][li]the state courts upheld it[/li][li]the federal courts upheld it[/li][/ol]
Therefore, regardless of your attempts to create other conditions that the law needs to exist, it’s valid, enforceable, and there’s nothing to do to change that except start over at step 1.
Conclude that.
That’s not necessary.
I think that the chance of an ultra-close election being called into question is sufficient justification.
But you disagree.
Fortunately, you don’t get to define the weight of these risks.
The legislature does. They have. Why do you believe that announcing your different idea about how the risks should be weighed is of any relevance?
Since when are old ladies that volunteer at the polling places empowered to “run ID’s”?
I can also fairly conclude that if the answer was “yes”, and you had even a glimmer of hope that you could prove it, you would say so. Without hesitation. Instead, you change the subject.
And no, I don’t need to nullify voter ID laws, I want them to be equably applied to further in justice in voting. Its not the laws themselves that chap my hide, its the way they are used.
And this makes the one hundred thirtieth time I’ve told you that.
Bricker, I’ve been mostly a lurker here for a very long time so I’ve seen your posts a lot, and haven’t felt the need to respond. And, while I disagree with you on many things, I respect your intellect and ability to argue coherently. But this response is…puzzling.
I never claimed Voter ID laws were illegal or unconstitutional (perhaps I made some stab at pointing out that the costs to individuals may amount to something like a poll tax, but, clearly, the courts differ). What I do think is that they are extremely bad policy. I consider myself an evidence-based liberal. I think laws, especially regulatory ones, and, even more especially, ones that regulate fundamental rights, should be made in response to actual problems, not specters constructed by parties to put a thumb on the scales of elections.
You’re correct that I don’t get to define the weight of the risks to “electoral integrity”. Thanks for pointing out that I am not a member of any legislative, executive, or judicial authority. But I can try to persude others who vote for those authorities that these laws are, indeed, bad policy, that the weighted risk is too small to justify the costs, and that the right to vote should be made easier to exercise, not harder. My desire and right to attempt to persuade is very relevant, both to me as an individual, and to the proper functioning of a pluralistic democratic republic, thank you very much.
I don’t have to agree with prevailing law. Because the Supreme Court currently seems to think these laws are Constitutional, I have little choice but to allow that that is the case. But that doesn’t mean it’s good policy. I don’t even think it’s good conservative policy (note the small ‘c’). I thought conservatives want to limit regulation to cases where the benefits clearly, nay, overwhelmingly, outweigh the costs (the part of my post you failed to quote), generally require hard-headed analysis and data over fuzzy, abstract notions of “justice” and “social good” (didn’t Thatcher deny the existence of “Society” as a consideration in policy-making?), and want an expansion of democracy and liberty. I don’t think these laws meet any of those traditionally conservative criteria.
Voter ID laws, Constitutional though they may be, have generally not been constructed along conservative principles. They have been constructed to benefit the relatively privileged. Certainly, many Democratic voters are in that category (I am). But privileged voters (older, White, male) do tend to skew to the Republicans.
Construct me a voter ID law that includes funding for a corps of “ID enablers” to reach out to every citizen, check whether they have ID, and actively help them get one if they lack it. Then I’d feel more comfortable about requiring everyone to show ID at the polls. It’s not enough to give “free” IDs to people who jump through an expensive and time-consuming series of bureaucratic hoops. Conservatives should be happy with a democracy where voter turnout is high, and that requires, at least in part, that it be simple to vote (though I concede that many people don’t really give enough of a shit to ever vote, regardless of the relative ease of the process).
Shit, go you one better! Combine voter ID outreach and convenience with an aggressive voter registration drive, and I’ll cheer, whistle and stomp! Yay for voter ID!
Of course, there was a very good reason why they couldn’t do that! They didn’t want to.
That’s fine. But the majority of your fellow citizens disagree with you. And since they have already spoken through their elected representatives, as is the process in a representative democracy, I would gently suggest that your efforts to argue your view of bad policy should not include preemptory demands such as a statement that before passing such a law, it must be “demonstrated” that there is significant in-person voter fraud. That’s not the only supportable rationale for a Voter ID law. There is no need to “demonstrate” that before the law becomes valid.
Of course. But, again, your persuasion rhetoric ought, in good faith, to recognize that while you personally have certain ideas about how to weigh the risks and value associated with electoral integrity, the legislative and executive branches disagree, and the judicial branch doesn’t believe this view contravenes the Constitution.
In other words, what I object to is your choice to express this disagreement by implying that their choice is not just poor policy but objective error.
This issue is not one susceptible to a claim of objective error.
I don’t agree that the government needs to spend money, time, and effort to cajole its citizens into exercise of their sovereign power.
Nor should the government spend money, time, and effort to discourage its citizens from exercising their sovereign power. If you know what I mean.
Well, sure – except to the extent that they absolutely should ensure that that’s their citizens, and not non-citizens, exercising said power.
Wait, what? Once a law is duly passed and accepted by the courts, we must roll over and accept it forever and anon? Mustn’t argue that maybe the law was made for bad reasons, and has unintended bad consequences that outweigh its benefits, children. That would be, I don’t know, disrespectful?
That’s…stunning. I contend that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches make objective errors all the time. That’s why laws get repealed and amended, and why representatives get their asses booted out of office sometimes. The law, duly passed or not, is not the ineffable, immutable Word of God. My persuasive rhetoric, poor as it might be, is intended to change the minds of the people who support these laws, and maybe change the laws, down the road. I realize it’s a fruitless pursuit, given the extreme unpersuadability of both sides of every issue in this country, but I’m quixotic. So sue me.
Funny that supporters of voter ID have no problem with creating additional costs to the (generally) poor folk for the requisite hoop jumping, but the idea of raising taxes even a nickle to put an infrastructure in place to help them hoop jump? Now THAT’S ridiculous!