Alabama illustrates the problem with voter ID laws

[CitizenKain]

This is an interesting combination of two unrelated events.

I didn't expect it to turn out that way, but you are right. This makes the governor's "budget cuts" look even worst, if that's possible.

Disenfranchising minorities is the goal of the rightwing. This was intentional.

Republicans are just dishonest people, its how they are raised. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[ivwshane]

Then it should be easy for you to answer my question. At least be consistent and say that Chicago is disenfranchising people with their photo ID requirements for early voting.

http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/when-you-need-id-to-vote.html

2 Voters who use Early Voting must present a government-issued photo ID.

Funny you should ask:

Early Voting for the March 15, 2016 Primary Elections will be offered from Thur., Feb. 4 through Mon., March 14.

Any voter registered in the City of Chicago may use any Early Voting site in the city, regardless of where the voter lives.

Ballots cast in Early Voting are final. After casting ballots in Early Voting, voters may not return to amend, change or undo a ballot for any reason. It is a felony to vote more than once -- or to attempt to vote more than once -- in the same election.

Voters don't need a reason or excuse to use Early Voting. Government-issued photo ID is not required but is helpful if there is a question about the voter's registration, address or signature.

http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/early-voting.html

 

[thraashman]

Funny you should ask:



http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/early-voting.html

I wonder if he'll return to admit he was wrong and apologize...



I won't be holding my breath.

 

[ivwshane]

I wonder if he'll return to admit he was wrong and apologize...



I won't be holding my breath.

I'm sure he's looking for other instances where Chicago requires a government ID. He'll be looking for a while.

 

[glenn1]

Funny you should ask:



http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/early-voting.html

Okay, good. So are you likewise going to call out the other racist states that require photo ID like Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin?

 

[waggy]

I have no issue requring a photo ID to vote.

It should be free to get a ID and wtf closing down places to get it? unacceptable.

 

[glenn1]

I'm sure he's looking for other instances where Chicago requires a government ID. He'll be looking for a while.

Who cares? We can just switch to Chicago requiring photo ID for drain cleaner or examples like Philadelphia requiring photo ID for marriage license, or Maryland for jury duty, etc. But so long as you get your vote fraud in then that's all that matters.

 

[thraashman]

Who cares? We can just switch to Chicago requiring photo ID for drain cleaner or examples like Philadelphia requiring photo ID for marriage license, or Maryland for jury duty, etc. But so long as you get your vote fraud in then that's all that matters.

So you're not going to admit you were wrong is what you're saying?
You know very well as do we all that vote fraud is so statistically insignificant that these laws have no beneficial effects. You know as well as we do that thousands more people get disenfranchised than are stopped from fraudulently voting. But you don't care because it benefits your team and you're a piece of shit.

 

[Ackmed]

You DO understand, don't you, that these laws aren't about "all" or even "most?" They're about putting in place just-high-enough obstructions to becoming a registered voter that "enough of a" percentage of the "other group" is discouraged from voting that the outcome of an election might be shifted in favor of "your group."

Of course, "your group" always claims some incredibly ethical motivation. Such as that "preventing even one voter-ID-fraudulently-cast ballot is one too many" (but that thousands or hundreds of thousands of valid "other group" votes suppressed, because of voter ID laws, is totally OK). You do understand this, don't you?

It's the same for all people, no matter what. Once again, it is not hard to get an ID. People just like to bitch.

But your post was just a long winded way of call me, "you people." Stay classy.

 

[ivwshane]

And the cycle continues.

I just want everyone to note my original reply to Glenn and how quickly he returned to parroting the voter ID talking points.

Let me quote my original post:

Yep, it's so free of vote fraud in Chicago that they require photo ID for early voting. I'm awaiting the explanation for how progressives reason it's OK to disenfranchise people without IDs on one date but not another.

The ID isn't the issue, it's the cost associated with getting one whether it's money, time, or both, it's a direct violation of the constitution when required for voting unless it's free.

I know this has been explained to you a countless number of times.


Oh and btw:

http://www.chicagoelections.com/en/when-you-need-id-to-vote.html

What forms of identification can a voter use to prove identity and residency?

A voter needs two forms of ID, at least one of which must show the address of the registration. These may include:

-- A valid and current Illinois driver's license
-- A valid and current state ID issued by the Illinois Secretary of State
-- A copy of a current and valid photo ID
-- A current utility bill with name and address
-- A current bank statement with name and address
-- A recent government check with name and address
-- A recent paycheck with name and address
-- A recent government document that shows the name and address
-- A current school or college ID card

Who cares? We can just switch to Chicago requiring photo ID for drain cleaner or examples like Philadelphia requiring photo ID for marriage license, or Maryland for jury duty, etc. But so long as you get your vote fraud in then that's all that matters.

 

[ivwshane]

I have no issue requring a photo ID to vote.

It should be free to get a ID and wtf closing down places to get it? unacceptable.

And I agree! Of course I'd also like to see automatic voter registration when people get government ID's but that's because I think more people, not less, should voting.

 

[thraashman]

And I agree! Of course I'd also like to see automatic voter registration when people get government ID's but that's because I think more people, not less, should voting.

Throughout democratic history the more people who vote, the less likely conservative candidates win. So conservatives want fewer people voting always. It's why they do more to attack voting than they do to help voters. Why win the election when you can rig it?

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, good. So are you likewise going to call out the other racist states that require photo ID like Hawaii, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin?

Would you like to go down that road? Or is this your way of deflecting and trying to save face?

Btw, my position is pretty clear; I have no problem with requiring an ID for voting, what I object to is the price associated with that requirement because it is a direct violation of the constitution. The constitution, to me, is not just a god damned piece of paper that is to be followed when convenient.

So, if a state, liberal or not, does what I'm against, I'll still hold the same position.

 

[glenn1]

So you're not going to admit you were wrong is what you're saying?
You know very well as do we all that vote fraud is so statistically insignificant that these laws have no beneficial effects. You know as well as we do that thousands more people get disenfranchised than are stopped from fraudulently voting. But you don't care because it benefits your team and you're a piece of shit.

Whatever. I'd gladly spot your side a few hundred thousand votes to ensure that those who did vote were doing do legally. You don't see it as a problem and don't care so we really have nothing to talk about.

 

[glenn1]

Would you like to go down that road? Or is this your way of deflecting and trying to save face?

Btw, my position is pretty clear; I have no problem with requiring an ID for voting, what I object to is the price associated with that requirement because it is a direct violation of the constitution. The constitution, to me, is not just a god damned piece of paper that is to be followed when convenient.

So, if a state, liberal or not, does what I'm against, I'll still hold the same position.

Then why aren't blue states giving out photo IDs for free to all, or advocating the federal government do so? Hell, your side comes up with the most ridiculous Keynesian stimulus bullshit all the time, at least that would be something useful for a change.

 

[ivwshane]

Then why aren't blue states giving out photo IDs for free to all, or advocating the federal government do so? Hell, your side comes up with the most ridiculous Keynesian stimulus bullshit all the time, at least that would be something useful for a change.

I don't know what you are talking about. Try to be specific, otherwise it looks like you are back peddling and grasping at straws.

Oh and if you were to spot any amount of votes it would most likely be a few hundred thousand as that's a rough estimate of the amount of people who could be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.

 

[JockoJohnson]

Aside from the people saying that adults should have IDs (and they should), the whole shutting down of DMV sites in majority black locations is a pretty shitty thing to do.

 

[glenn1]

I don't know what you are talking about. Try to be specific, otherwise it looks like you are back peddling and grasping at straws.

Oh and if you were to spot any amount of votes it would most likely be a few hundred thousand as that's a rough estimate of the amount of people who could be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.

How is that not specific? Your side complained about photo voter ID laws in Alabama in other places. Given the SCOTUS ruling and nature of federalism it seems the easiest fix to your concerns is that your side supports universal and free photo IDs paid by the feds. Solves the stated concerns of both sides with a relatively trivial expense.

 

[michal1980]

Really. You are going to make a poor person who needs every $ they can get take a day off work and drive up to 5 counties away just to get some stinking ID the state wants them to have?

How about an ID almost all citizens have. Utility bill perhaps?

BTW - you do know in person voter fraud since the year 2000 has been statistically ZERO

yeah, that makes sense. ohio allows utility bills, pay stubs, bank statements, and shoot even government checks. so everyone should have one of those, except maybe hobos.

What does a utility bill prove, other then you might live in an area? Last I checked there was like zero requirements to get a utility turned on.

 

[shira]

It's the same for all people, no matter what. Once again, it is not hard to get an ID. People just like to bitch.

But your post was just a long winded way of call me, "you people." Stay classy.

So as long as the rules are "the same for all people, no matter what," that makes the rules OK? And the fact that YOU find it's "not hard to get an ID" means that it's not possible that some groups (for example, minorities, who may have a lot more difficult time finding the needed documentation than many other groups, who don't have to deal with displacement/homelessness/ dislocation do) may find it quite a lot more difficult than you do? This is the essence of your argument?

Edit: By your argument, a passing score on a literacy test would be okay as a pre-condition for registering to vote, because such a rule would be (1) "The same for all people, no matter what," and (2) "not hard" (as long as you can read and write). So you totally would be okay with such a test, right? Except that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 made such tests illegal. Why on Earth did Congress pass a law like that, I wonder.

 

[ivwshane]

How is that not specific? Your side complained about photo voter ID laws in Alabama in other places. Given the SCOTUS ruling and nature of federalism it seems the easiest fix to your concerns is that your side supports universal and free photo IDs paid by the feds. Solves the stated concerns of both sides with a relatively trivial expense.

It is the easiest fix but it's pretty much hated by everyone no matter what their political affiliation.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/national-id-card-voter-fraud-solution

Personally I'm all for it.

 

[fskimospy]

So as long as the rules are "the same for all people, no matter what," that makes the rules OK? And the fact that YOU find it's "not hard to get an ID" means that it's not possible that some groups (for example, minorities, who may have a lot more difficult time finding the needed documentation than many other groups, who don't have to deal with displacement/homelessness/ dislocation do) may find it quite a lot more difficult than you do? This is the essence of your argument?

Arguments like that always remind me of one of my favorite quotes by Anatole France:

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

 

[trenchfoot]

The old ways want to die a slow, agonizing, fitfully futile death. And as it withers on the vine and the foliage drops off leaf by leaf, it exposes the cause of death for all to see and wonder why it had to die that way.

 

[glenn1]

It is the easiest fix but it's pretty much hated by everyone no matter what their political affiliation.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/national-id-card-voter-fraud-solution

Personally I'm all for it.

I would be too, with the slight reservation about what personal information they would collect to implement seeing how much trouble the feds have in securing databases against hackers. If they collected just enough to identify you that's fine, but I get the sense they would unfortunately try to link it to every piece of information about you like tax records, bank information for payments from the Feds, military draft info, etc.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

It's the same for all people, no matter what. Once again, it is not hard to get an ID. People just like to bitch.

I'll be more inclined to agree with you when you post an unedited video of yourself traveling to a DMV in a different county for less than a couple bucks to simulate what it's like for poor people in these counties in Alabama to obtain an ID. You can't drive yourself; these people are registering for driver's licenses, so they probably don't have a valid one. You can't take a taxi; too expensive. You can take public transportation or convince a friend to take you. Film the entire thing, from leaving your house, to getting to the DMV, waiting in line, simulate the time needed for any required testing (let's just call this an hour), and the return trip home. Videotape yourself doing that entire thing and then I'll be inclined to believe you that it's not hard to get an ID. Because while it may not be hard for you to get an ID, you aren't in the same situation as the people you're talking about. I feel like you'd be a lot more empathetic if you went through the same process you're asking of them.