How does excessive ID turn away minority voters?

[doubledeluxe]

The issue is simply that the law is put in place to tackle a problem that does not exist. It makes voting more difficult for no reason other than to disenfranchise a segment of the population that is legally allowed to vote.

 

[blankslate]

Many states give illegals driver licenses. Then those states get in trouble with activist groups because the illegals driver's license looks different from one who is in the country legally. Can't have illegals being identified and discriminated against.

I doubt undocumented people with drivers licenses would want to vote because in person voter fraud at a polling place does carry severe penalties if convicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-voter-fraud/2011/10/04/gIQAkjoYTL_story.html

Both federal and state laws include stiff fines and imprisonment for voter fraud. Under federal law, perpetrators face up to five years in prison and a fine of $10,000 for each act of fraud. In Alabama, voter fraud is punishable by up to two years in prison and a $2,000 fine. In Wisconsin, the punishment is up to 31 / 2 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Missouri imposes a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. And in Texas, the maximum prison sentence is 10 years.

It would seem that enforcing the current laws is quite enough to discourage non-idiots from trying.


....

 

[xBiffx]

You could arguably kill a person with vote I guess. But not as directly as a person who is extremely careless or malicious with a firearm.

Some analogies are idiotic and quite stupid.


.....

Funny you bring that up. What purpose does checking for ID serve in dealing with the bolded? Also, is it not possible for that person to acquire a firearm another way that doesn't require their ID?

 

[MrPickins]

I have no problem with ID requirements for voting, but only on the condition that the state provide a free valid ID for those who don't have a driver's license or other acceptable form of ID, and if necessary assist with making arrangements to obtain the ID either through transporting people or doing it onsite for people unable to travel.

:thumbsup:

I'd also add that the state should assist people who are unable to obtain sufficient original documentation.

 

[stormkroe]

This is not a very good argument. All rights are restricted, but the nature of those restrictions varies by what that right is and the situation. Just because ID is required for one right does not mean that it should be required for another.

For example, since you ostensibly support voter ID should you have to show ID to be immune from unlawful searches? Should you need an ID to exercise your right to free speech?

All these arguments are sort of secondary though. The only argument you need against voter ID is that it is irrational as it imposes costs without any benefit.

The bolded is a false equivalency, as you simply need to 'be a person' to enjoy those rights. To vote, you need to 'be the correct person'.

Free IDs for those who can't afford them, it's the perfect answer. It would be a drop in the bucket for the United Subsidies of America, and if it didn't produce the right results the dems could heckle the repubs for the rest of eternity over it.
Win/win.

 

[m8d]

You need to show that you are a U.S citizen to get welfare or government aid.

 

[michal1980]

That says nothing about illegals.

are not illegals non-citizens?

 

[steppinthrax]

Many states give illegals driver licenses. Then those states get in trouble with activist groups because the illegals driver's license looks different from one who is in the country legally. Can't have illegals being identified and discriminated against.

There was a primary here in TN that had a difference of 18 votes decide the winner. Even though obama cannot grant citizenship to illegals (which I think he will try after today)... we are going down a road where illegals can influence elections.

But you have to be reg to vote right? That req some gov agency to cross check your voting eligibility?

 

[fskimospy]

The bolded is a false equivalency, as you simply need to 'be a person' to enjoy those rights. To vote, you need to 'be the correct person'.

Free IDs for those who can't afford them, it's the perfect answer. It would be a drop in the bucket for the United Subsidies of America, and if it didn't produce the right results the dems could heckle the repubs for the rest of eternity over it.
Win/win.

It was meant to be intentionally silly, but actually there are a number of cases in which you do not have a right against unreasonable searches, such as parolees. So you still have to be the right person, just there are a lot more of them.

Regardless, the idea that all constitutional rights need to be regulated in an identical manner is obviously silly. They aren't, and they never will be.

 

[himkhan]

You need to show that you are a U.S citizen to get welfare or government aid.

False equivalencies aren't truth. Welfare isn't a right. Not all poor people vote just like not all rich people vote. Stop dragging out this old, debunked, dead horse Jack Woltz :whiste:

 

[DucatiMonster696]

False equivalencies aren't truth. Welfare isn't a right. Not all poor people vote just like not all rich people vote. Stop dragging out this old, debunked, dead horse Jack Woltz :whiste:

It's not a false equivalency. He is drawing the connection between the false argument that the poor are unable to gain access to ID's yet they are able to meet the requirements of a legal form of ID needed to be presented for other areas of life. Areas that the poor do and can demonstrated that they can access an ID for such actions such as gaining access to welfare benefits, opening a bank account, obtaining a payday loan, receiving medical benefits etc. And no this has not been debunked one bit outside of the wishy, washy arguments that try to skirt around this point or ignore it all together. Nevermind the point on the 2nd amendment which is also a constitutional right, yet we still require people to present ID's to be able to exercise that right as well.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

It's not a false equivalency. He is drawing the connection between the false argument that the poor are unable to gain access to ID's yet they are able to meet the requirements of a legal form of ID needed to be presented for other areas of life. Areas that the poor do and can demonstrated that they can access an ID for such actions such as gaining access to welfare benefits, opening a bank account, obtaining a payday loan, receiving medical benefits etc. And no this has not been debunked one bit outside of the wishy, washy arguments that try to skirt around this point or ignore it all together. Nevermind the point on the 2nd amendment which is also a constitutional right, yet we still require people to present ID's to be able to exercise that right as well.

Got a challenge for you. Show me one single social benefit that targets the poor and elderly that absolutely must have a current government issued photo ID. There's a reason this programs offer many alternatives. And throwing in pay day loans etc... Doesn't really cut it as a valid example.

 

[himkhan]

It's not a false equivalency. He is drawing the connection between the false argument that the poor are unable to gain access to ID's yet they are able to meet the requirements of a legal form of ID needed to be presented for other areas of life. Areas that the poor do and can demonstrated that they can access an ID for such actions such as gaining access to welfare benefits, opening a bank account, obtaining a payday loan, receiving medical benefits etc. And no this has not been debunked one bit outside of the wishy, washy arguments that try to skirt around this point or ignore it all together. Nevermind the point on the 2nd amendment which is also a constitutional right, yet we still require people to present ID's to be able to exercise that right as well.

Not all poor people collect welfare or aid. It is not guaranteed. [fixed part that always get the constitution thumpers up in arms] It is and always will be a false equivalency no matter how much you wish it weren't. This is repost, or a repost, or a repost anyway. This must be the 10th thread the past election cycle dealing with the same BS. Agree to disagree. You will never get to disenfranchise people because you don't like the fact that they either can't or don't want to have a government issued ID. They will always be able to vote if voter signs an affidavit. This people have very little motivation to leave their homeless shelters/bridges/boxes to go and commit perjury.

There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burden which are always republicans.

EDIT: While it is correct that there is not an explicit provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to vote there are several amendments that guarantee the right to vote at age 18, free of racial discrimination, and protected by the Equal Protection doctrine. It's clear the right to vote is inherent throughout our founding document, and there are amendments prohibiting discrimination.

 

[michal1980]

I doubt undocumented people with drivers licenses would want to vote because in person voter fraud at a polling place does carry severe penalties if convicted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-voter-fraud/2011/10/04/gIQAkjoYTL_story.html



It would seem that enforcing the current laws is quite enough to discourage non-idiots from trying.


....

and yet a study found that people aren't usa citizens are voting, laws be damned. And possibly to the point of changing election law. Obamacare might not be here if not for them.

 

[HomerJS]

You need to show that you are a U.S citizen to get welfare or government aid.

are you forgetting this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

but its all about the fraud, right?????

 

[WackyDan]

But you have to be reg to vote right? That req some gov agency to cross check your voting eligibility?

Right....

I suggest you google "motor voter" and you'll see how utterly fucked that was. Illegals got licenses and were automatically registered to vote. Go figure...

 

[HomerJS]

Right....

I suggest you google "motor voter" and you'll see how utterly fucked that was. Illegals got licenses and were automatically registered to vote. Go figure...

Kinda leveled out by thousands of fake voter mailers sent by AFP to primarily minority districts to confuse voters.

 

[shira]

I don't understand this. I'm a minority. I bring my voter reg card and my drivers license. I read somewhere that laws that require excessive ID or restrictive ID are designed to target minorities.

Why is this?

Here's a simple example of why. The poor (who are disproportionately minorities, and thus more likely to be Democrats) are less likely to own cars, and therefore less likely to have drivers licenses in the first place. The better off are much more likely to own cars and have drivers licenses. The more affluent are less likely to be Democrats.

So, just in "living your life," the more affluent already have the necessary ID to vote, while the poor are less likely to have the necessary ID to vote, and need to do something "extra" if they want to vote. And, no, the poor don't necessarily need an ID to live - they often don't have bank accounts, and often work for cash.

What's the incentive for the more affluent to get IDs? The huge benefit of driving a car (with the collateral benefit that they can vote). What's the incentive for many poor people to get IDs? Voting only. So you can see that - for the sole benefit of voting - SOME percentage of the poor aren't willing to go to the trouble of getting an ID. In other words, the poor have less of an incentive to get an ID than the affluent do. And if they have less of an incentive, they're less likely to get an ID at all.

 

[Svnla]

I went to vote today, shown my ID (not driver license), the lady took it and checked my name on the list, asked me to sign the log book and it was done. Not sure why people are whining and bitching about ID.

 

[HomerJS]

I went to vote today, shown my ID (not driver license), the lady took it and checked my name on the list, asked me to sign the log book and it was done. Not sure why people are whining and bitching about ID.

If every eligible voter had that elusive "ID" there would be no complaints. Therein lies the issue. If states want to enact voter ID they should be mandated to provide to every eligible voter and only allow that ID. States also need to prove they have complied.