Shit, he filed a Motion to Fuhgeddaboutit! OK, well, all of you who read what I said are now legally obliged to forget it ever happened. Damn! Outsmarted again!
Sez you. But few, including the legislature, would agree with you.
Yes, exactly right. We have mechanisms for determining what is, and is not, reasonable. And they are the legislatures, and then the courts.
Unless what they do is unjust. Then they surrender any such privilege, they no longer deserve it. And if they use such power to ensure they retain such power, they betray their oaths and are deserving of nothing but our contempt. Tyranny by the elected may be marginally an improvement over tyranny by force, but a reasonable man will not trouble himself over such a puny distinction.
Says the court in response, “Neener-neener.”
Bricker, you’re making the same old argument that anything that anything that’s legal is, by definition, good. Which is a foolish claim. Lots of bad things have been carried out under the cloak of legality.
If the law is always perfect than why are people trying to change it by enacting voter ID laws? Wouldn’t the law have already been perfect before these laws existed and if so, didn’t enacting them make the law less perfect?
Obviously this isn’t true. Some laws are good and some laws are bad. We should enact good laws if they don’t exist and repeal bad laws if they do.
And voter ID laws? They’re bad laws.
So in summary your position on this matter seems to be that the action of requiring voter ID is legal (what with the dismissal of the Voting Rights Act and all), and it’s reasonable, as evidenced by the fact that legislatures have passed it.
Some of us, however, think that legislatures, especially state legislatures, do unreasonable things motivated by self-interest and playing to the imagined fears of the constituents.
My first post in this thread was just throwing out my tentative opinion on the matter, and inviting information that could change my mind. The unreasonableness of your posts here have increased my confidence that I had it right from the beginning. Thanks.
Will you answer this, Bricker?
Yes, and this kind of Intertubes-wrangle, like discussions in bars and coffeehouses and at dinner-tables and at “Town Hall” meetings, is all part of that political process, as it shapes the parameters of the debate and positions the boundaries of the Overton Window and affects how everything plays out at the polls on e-day. There is a process, and we are doing it now.
So . . . what is your point, here?
At the very least, the state should show some proportionate justification before it increases the burden of voting.
But I can anticipate Bricker’s response. He’ll say - correctly - that the state is not legally required to offer any justification before enacting a law. Legislatures are allowed to enact bad laws. The argument Bricker keeps avoiding is whether a state should enact a bad law.
A legislature is not justice, just as the most ornate and gilded cathedral is not Jesus. The law is the handjob of justice.
But I do not agree that voter id laws are bad necessarily, they could be done right and be a generous gift to electoral equality. It requires good will and a selfless, non-partisan devotion to justice, which is sorely absent in any of these.
My birth certificate is from the Republic of Kenya, but I take your point. I would not call a birth certificate an ID; I doubt I could take one with me and go buy alcohol or get on a plane. Still, I recognize that this is for most people the fundamental cornerstone to getting all their other IDs. I would definitely call this a weak point in the whole system. There should probably be some unalterable biometric measurements taken at birth and attached to the birth certificate as a digital record. Some would shudder at this and raise the spectre of Big Brother; however, I consider myself a civil libertarian and I can see no real objection to this concept except from someone who wants to fraudulently represent themselves as someone other than who they in fact are.
First off, there is no way anyone should be able to register with a power bill, especially not a college student. A roommate could just grab that. You might as well not require anything to register other than someone’s word if you’re going to accept a joke like that.
And I just doubt there are that many college students with no DL or state ID. Even at age 21? (And why should election authorities have laxer standards than bars or 7/11s?) If a college student can’t procure one, maybe they are not college material.
Some of the other groups are of greater concern, but this is why we need orgs like the erstwhile ACORN or OFA to help people take care of this stuff.
If it were an actual standardised test, like a short version of the SAT or ACT, I would be okay with this. But that’s not the way it was done under Jim Crow.
Now this is a serious issue that must be addressed. I have never had to wait more a minute or two to vote, and usually not at all (there are more open booths than voters, usually more than twice as many, and I can take my pick). That is blatantly inequitable if others wait hours.
So instead of whining, let’s confound their expectations and show that we are not that easily discouraged. This is exactly what happened in the last election, when a bunch of onerous new registration requirements were supposed to dampen minority turnout; instead, black turnout exceeded white turnout for the first time in American history.
I would call this an outdated impression of absentee voting and its proponents. In the past few years, it has been Democrats who have most strongly pushed absentee voting without needing a cause (like a trip or illness). Many wrongheaded progressives would like to follow Oregon to all-absentee, despite the very valid point you raise.
Or maybe it’s just exactly what you’d expect if you make something nearly impossible to detect: no one gets caught doing it.
So they can handle two I-9s and two W-4s, but not one state ID application?
I do think it would be reasonable to press for these laws to streamline or improve access to the process of getting an ID. Have extended hours, have people who can help gather documents and do so for free, etc. Before someone comes back with the tired refrain “that’s not what Republicans are proposing”, I remind them that in any jurisdiction where they think it might at all be possible to block voter ID laws altogether, it should be even easier to modify them. By making this our counterproposal, we stop letting them have the high ground.
I’m a Democrat. So is Jimmy Carter last I heard:
In searching for the above, I happened upon this NYT piece from a year ago today:
Here in the People’s Republic of Minnesota, we have rather forgiving laws about such. You can register and vote on the same day. And if you have no picture ID, a utility bill or approximation thereof in your name and address and a registered voter will swear that they know who you are and where you live, you vote. That day. The registered voter who testifies on your behalf does so under the laws of perjury, of course.
Probably this is why Minnesota has been reduced to a smoking ruin.
I blame Al Franken.
I was against him running when he first brought it up, but Bricker convinced me I was wrong, and now I’m pretty content with it. Come to think of it, never actually thanked him. Oh, well.
Will you answer this, Bricker?
Uhmm…no.
There have been many studies into this issue and across the board they have found no pervasive election fraud of the sort we are on about here. There is nothing “impossible” about detecting it at all.
If you can cite a study that shows rampant voter fraud of this sort I am all ears.
Every study I have seen has shown that voter fraud like we are on about here and voter IDs will fix is nearly non-existent.
You are expending effort and spending money to “fix” something that needs no fixing.
Stuff like this puts the lie to fiscal conservatives pretending they care about wasting money. They gleefully do so, same as Dems, when it is in their interests.
How many times do I have to point out that I am far from conservative?
Also: any response to the Carter Center stuff I posted?
Also from Hasen’s book, and reassuring – from Chapter 6, “Deus ex Machina”: He acknowledges that the DRE (direct recording electronic) voting machines do have all kinds of security-holes a hacker could exploit, and some have in tests; but he dismisses for lack of actual evidence claims of any conspiracy to rig “black box voting” results through hacking, viruses, or hidden software.
Of course, OTOH . . . as with “voter fraud” . . .
Well, you are the state that elected Rudy Boschowitz and nearly made Allen Quist Governor.
If you support voter ID laws then you are supporting something that is distinctly conservative.
As for the Carter Center stuff not sure what you want to prove. Seems it is slicing and dicing the numbers differently. I have cited that 11% of people in the US do not have photo IDs. The Carter Center seems to suggest that of that 11% not many vote.
So what?
If I determine you did not vote the last two elections is it ok if I throw impediments to you voting in the next election?
Further, conservative efforts at disenfranchisement are not limited to Voter ID laws. They are making efforts on numerous fronts to make it more difficult for typically liberal voters to vote.
In short the group who generally is the loudest to proclaim the virtues of democracy are doing their level best to make the system undemocratic.