In what mathematical sense of “normal” would the bottom 20% not be included?
You’ve had a cellphone for 40 years?
Hey, don’t knock it! For one thing, you don’t need complicated plug-in slots, just keep up the kerosene level and you’re good to go!
Well, that’s a good point. I guess they just don’t make them like they used to.
The Fifth Circuit has fixed that erroneous decision, re-instating the law after Texas modified the law to allow a voter to vote after executing an affidavit that they faced “a reasonable impediment” to obtaining ID. The Fifth Circuit told the district judge to re-evaluate that change, and she again struck down the law, so the Fifth Circuit got involved again, this time saying:
They also scold Judge Ramos for trying to dodge the direction they gave her on their first remand, calling her decision to again enjoin the whole law “puzzling.”
Does the law provide a definition of what is or is not a “reasonable impediment”?
No, that’s left to the affiant.
Seems odd to require a declaration under penalty of perjury for something vague and ill-defined. That’s a subjective assessment, not a statement of fact.
Maybe people should stop whining about how hard it is to procure an ID, when it’s clearly not.
Maybe people should stop whining about how hard it is to buy a gun, when clearly it is not.
(And yet there have been recent successful lawsuits against gun control laws. Funny how much different it is when it’s your ox getting gored.)
It’s not for most people, but it is for some people. But even that’s not the point. The point is, simply making it more inconvenient for some people to vote, even if they’re not actually prevented from voting, will reduce turnout to some degree. Every new restriction, every new hoop you make people jump through, will cause fewer people to vote. And the people implementing (or trying to implement) these voter ID schemes know this, and have calculated that it will reduce votes for the other side moreso than them. They’re gaming the system.
Gun control, for or against, is NOT my ox to gore. When was the last time I posted in a gun thread?
Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s very rude.
But accusing people of whining is the apex of courtesy, apparently. You’re hardly one to comment on anyone else being rude!
I call it like I see it.
Now, when did I post about gun control, for or against?
So if that is so important to the Dems then how many Democratic controlled political units (state, county, cities) are actively trying to get 100% of their residents a photo ID?
I’d be totally on board with identical barriers for each, but I bet you won’t be.
Right?
Fact is, you’re right. I think that voting is a positive thing that benefits the entire country…and guns are currently killing tens of thousands of people (including voters.)
I didn’t actually equate the two, save only in the sense that “whining” is subjective, and it’s always different when it’s your pet cause that gets attacked.
Rent a Clue: using the courts to try to defend rights is not “whining.” Even rights you might not agree with.
We have a right to vote. We do not have a right to vote with perfect ease. We can be required to undergo a modicum of inconvenience in order to vote. Attempts to use courts to create a right to vote without ID is closer to whining than to enforcing an existing right, because the right to vote with literally no inconvenience does not exist.
What strikes many of us as highly dubious is that the inconveniences are correlated with group identity. The laws have made it harder for the poor to vote, for students (who often do not live “at home”) to vote, and (scandalously) for members of the armed forces (same reason) to vote.
It is the opinion of a good many of us that these inconveniences are placed with strategic deliberation, to cause fewer of “the wrong kind of people” to vote. The legislative breakdown is highly partisan, and that sends a disturbing signal.
Inconveniences that actually served a valid purpose could be defended – although there is no rash of illegal voting, so the “cure” is almost wholly in the absence of a disease. But inconveniences that harm people according to class are really hard to defend.
The same is true for the allocation of election resources. Rich neighborhoods had more polling stations per capita than poor neighborhoods. This looks, to many of us, as if it were strategically designed to deter poor people from voting.
At least some courts have agreed that the burdens were not justifiable.
You can’t use the argument, “Nobody said it had to be perfectly easy” to justify making it unfairly difficult.
Yes — but the armed forces skew Republican, which weakens your partisan advantage theory.
I have no doubt that some legislators who approve of these measures did so for partisan advantage as opposed to support of a wise neutral policy. And equally I believe some legislators that disapprove of the measures do so because they perceive partisan disadvantage, not because they regard the measures as unwise.
Sure. But the rich have it easier in all walks of life. It’s not strategic design; it’s a natural consequence of having more resources to devote to the tasks that face you.
So? Other courts – higher courts – have overruled some of those courts. Ultimately, I’m fine with shaking things out by court. But the Supreme Court, in Crawford v Marion County, has approved the basic design of Voter ID laws.