Voter Identification

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

But the reaon that I feel "justified" is because the issue of allowing students the right to vote on campus is settled law..

And if legislators exercise proper procedure and successfully enact legislation which alters that situation, then that will become settled law and, as such, will need to be respected.
Correct?

No, it's not correct. The Highest Court in the Land has already ruled on the matter. There will most likely be legal challenges if these new "laws" go in effect. As you should know, the Supreme Court doesn't overturn prior decisions without a compelling reason.

We don't have "parliamentary style" government in this country. Do you really want the laws changed every time the political majority changes? I sure don't. As I've said many times now, it would be different if there was a "compelling reason" to change the law. Then perhaps it could withstand legal challenges. But that's just not the case.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

There is no way that I would support enacting laws that restrict anyone's existing voting rights. The fact that most college students tend to vote Democratic is, and should be, totally irrelevant.

Would you be in favor of a law allowing those stationed on a military base to claim the base as their permanent residence (or in the event of overseas deployment, to claim residence at their last assigned U.S. base), thus allowing them to vote as one bloc in a particular electoral district in a particular state?

Of course. I found a handy Q & A document on this, if you're interested...

http://www.hurlburt.af.mil/featuredtopics/votingassistance/index.asp

Quote :

Even if it is not one's home state, military members may vote in the state or territory where they are stationed if they change their legal residence to that state or territory. Even if servicemembers live on a military installation, just registering to vote at their new location will often result in a change in legal residence.

Under current law, those in the military may have other residency issues to consider that college kids do not, but I certainly have no issue with the concept that you are describing. Why would I?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The Highest Court in the Land has already ruled on the matter. There will most likely be legal challenges if these new "laws" go in effect. As you should know, the Supreme Court doesn't overturn prior decisions without a compelling reason.

No argument there. The entire discussion about college students was pretty much academic anyway.

Assuming that the pun was intended, that's pretty good, Jack.

happy jack wrote:

So, what about this?:

Why is this being framed as a black/white issue?
What is it about blacks that they cannot accomplish the incredibly simple task of obtaining an ID card, while whites apparently have no problem doing so?

How do you figure that this is being "framed" as a black/white issue? I was under the impression that it was the poor and the elderly that are more likely not to have an acceptable ID?

Scorpion wrote:

Assuming that the pun was intended, that's pretty good, Jack.

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Scorpion wrote:

How do you figure that this is being "framed" as a black/white issue? I was under the impression that it was the poor and the elderly that are more likely not to have an acceptable ID?

I was referring to the portion of the article you posted earlier in the thread:

An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.

Blacks account for about one-fifth of the North Carolina electorate but are a larger share - 27 percent - of the approximately 1 million voters who may lack a state-issued ID or whose names do not exactly match the Division of Motor Vehicles database. The analysis found about 556,000 voters with no record of an ID issued by the DMV.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

How do you figure that this is being "framed" as a black/white issue? I was under the impression that it was the poor and the elderly that are more likely not to have an acceptable ID?

I was referring to the portion of the article you posted earlier in the thread:

An analysis by the North Carolina State Board of Elections showed that any new law requiring a state-issued ID could be problematic for large numbers of voters, particularly African Americans, whose turnout in 2008 helped Obama win the state.

Blacks account for about one-fifth of the North Carolina electorate but are a larger share - 27 percent - of the approximately 1 million voters who may lack a state-issued ID or whose names do not exactly match the Division of Motor Vehicles database. The analysis found about 556,000 voters with no record of an ID issued by the DMV.

Yeah. Well I imagine that's because blacks are more likely to be poor, in terms of percentage. I don't think that there was any intent to imply that blacks are somehow "less capable" than whites. if that's what you're getting at...

Since photo ID laws adversely impact the poor, and blacks are more likely to be poor, then the photo ID laws will disproportionately affect black people.

I thought this thread was about how to spot different kinds of voters.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well I imagine that's because blacks are more likely to be poor, in terms of percentage. I don't think that there was any intent to imply that blacks are somehow "less capable" than whites. if that's what you're getting at...
Since photo ID laws adversely impact the poor, and blacks are more likely to be poor, then the photo ID laws will disproportionately affect black people.

Then why not just say ‘poor’?
Why the need to impute some form of non-existent racism to the motives of those involved (not you - the authors of the article)?

Scorpion wrote:

I don't think that there was any intent to imply that blacks are somehow "less capable" than whites. if that's what you're getting at...

No, that’s not what I’m getting at.
I’m wondering what they are getting at, and why they felt the need to whip out the race card for no apparent reason.

Because. like I explained, since photo ID laws adversely impact the poor, and blacks are more likely to be poor, then the photo ID laws will disproportionately affect black people. The writer is just quantifying that effect.

IMHO, there is no implication of "racism" and it's not "playing the race card" to point out basic facts.

I think that the "motives of those involved" are even simpler to understand. But it's not about racism. It's about denying the vote to as many Democratic constituencies as possible. If black people were more likely to vote Republican, there would be no need for any of these "laws."

The "appearance" of racism? You have got to be kidding me. The fact that the proposed laws will disproportionately impact black people is a perfectly legitimate point.

And BTW - Everyone should care when an attempt is made to take away voting rights from people. That's what the "process under discussion" is all about.

Brought to you by the same people who want to destroy unions....
Conservative Corporate Advocacy Group ALEC Behind Voter Disenfranchisement Efforts
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative organization linked to corporate and right-wing donors, including the billionaire Koch brothers, has drafted and distributed model legislation, obtained by Campus Progress, that appears to be the inspiration for bills proposed by state legislators this year and promoted by Tea Party activists, bills that would limit access of young people to vote.

ALEC describes itself as a “nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.”

Artie60438 wrote:

Brought to you by the same people who want to destroy unions....
Conservative Corporate Advocacy Group ALEC Behind Voter Disenfranchisement Efforts

Hey, thanks for the link. I especially liked the quote from the president of the College Republicans from Dartmouth...

Quote :

Rather than seeking to persuade young voters on the issues, these conservatives are aiming to restrict access to voting through draconian measures. Their efforts are raising the ire of College Democrats and College Republicans alike. The president of the College Republicans at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, Richard Sunderland, tells Campus Progress that the GOP should focus on bringing “younger students into the fold as Republicans, as opposed to this, which seems like more of an attack.”

Sunderland adds that while he is a Republican, “The way I see the lines here, is we are students and first and foremost. As students, this is attacking our right to vote.”

It's really good to see students closing ranks on this. The targeted attack on student voters is really disgusting and just plain malevolent.

It's good to see that Rock the Vote is all over this issue as well...

http://www.rockthevote.com/campaigns/suppression/

Quote :

YOU ARE GETTING SCREWED. There is a war on voting going on and your rights are under attack. Politicians are trying to block young people from voting with shady new photo ID and residency laws. They are getting rid of things that make it easier for people to vote, like Election Day registration, early voting and pre-registration laws.

T IS TIME TO STOP THE BULLS**T. In America, we rock the vote, we don't block the vote. Join our campaign. We'll send you updates and get you plugged into the action in your state.

At the very least, I'm going to send them some money. Cuz I gotta tell ya, I'm not about to sit idly by while Republicans launch a full scale assault on student voting rights.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

The "appearance" of racism? You have got to be kidding me. The fact that the proposed laws will disproportionately impact black people is a perfectly legitimate point.

A couple of posts back you said the motives didn't involve racism.
What has changed since then?

My position hasn't changed at all. I don't think it's about racism. But again, the fact that the proposed laws will disproportionately impact black people is undeniable. Why are the Republicans targeting black voters? Because they tend to vote Democratic, that's why. Like I said, if black voters tended to vote Republican, then we wouldn't be seeing these extraordinary efforts to keep them from voting.

It's really not much different from the attack on college students. It's clear to me that the Republicans want to eliminate as many Democratic voting constituencies as possible.

What the hell do you think it's about?

What is the justification for requiring a photo ID?

Why do you think it should be required?

The answers to these questions are significant because from what I've read, 11 percent of the eligible population, around 21 million people, don't have a photo ID.

In light of the fact that these people won't be allowed to vote because they don't have a photo ID, there really needs to be a better reason than "I'm not insisting that anyone do any more than what I am willing to do." What you are "willing to do" is pull your photo ID from your wallet. That's really not an option for those who don't have one in their wallet, is it?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Why are the Republicans targeting black voters?

They're not. They're targeting all voters.

Yeah. Whatever. As I keep pointing out the changes disproportionately affect black voters because they are more likely to be poor and not have a photo ID. I've also pointed out that it's not about racism and that the Republicans are really targeting black voters not because they are black, but because they are a Democratic constituency.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it for you. If it will ease your conscience to pretend that all voters are affected equally, go right ahead.

I've had a photo ID since I signed up for Driver's Ed. Are you telling me that to get food stamps, Medicaid, or any other assistance, you don't need to prove who you are? I'm seeing a big problem with that. And, obviously, these people never buy alcohol or cold medicine.

KarenT wrote:

I've had a photo ID since I signed up for Driver's Ed.

Yeah. Me too, Karen. The photo ID laws won't affect us.

Quote :

Are you telling me that to get food stamps, Medicaid, or any other assistance, you don't need to prove who you are?

Of course you need to furnish something that confirms your identity. That doesn't mean that it needs to be a photo ID.

I was genuinely surprised when I found out that more than 21 million people do not have government issued photo identification. It just seems unbelievable, doesn't it? But the fact of the matter is that is reality. And as long as that is true, Republicans should not be proposing laws that rob these people of their right to vote.