Judges Overturn Racially Motivated Voter Suppression Laws in WI, TX, & MI

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
Also, if you do not have ID and a police officer stops you and asks for ID and you don't have any you'll end up in jail. You can't get on a Greyhound bus without ID. You can't use Amtrak without ID. You sure as hell can't fly anywhere without ID. And, of course, you can't drive without ID.

Yet we supposedly have a right to travel.

Yes, because the 24th amendment says


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You will find that the right to vote is enshrined in this amendment. The right to bear arms and the right to travel, while also certainly important rights unto themselves, are not part of this amendment, and the government is not legally required to make them free for you.

I am starting to get the impression I might be wasting my time here.... ;)
 

Bart*Simpson

Senior member
Jul 21, 2015
604
4
36
www.canadaka.net
Yeah, except it isn't, because, once again

And, again, there is no tax on voting. The 24th Amendment addressed that issue.

Just to be clear: I support providing ID to those who can't afford the $10 or so that it typically costs for a state issued ID.

So if we provide ID to those who can't afford it then why oppose a voter ID requirement?
 

Screech

Golden Member
Oct 20, 2004
1,202
6
81
And, again, there is no tax on voting. The 24th Amendment addressed that issue.

Just to be clear: I support providing ID to those who can't afford the $10 or so that it typically costs for a state issued ID.

So if we provide ID to those who can't afford it then why oppose a voter ID requirement?

For a few reasons: first, that you are devising a solution to a problem which, in a practical sense, does not exist; and furthermore, because I understand how this would work. Wealthier individuals will have no problem getting them (well, they likely already have it), while poorer individuals would have problems getting them and etc.

Basically, this is a reasonable requirement if the number of votes that would be fraudulently cast that are prevented from being cast ('A') is greater than the number of legal votes that have been prevented from being cast ('B'). Even if literally every single voter was given a free ID, you would probably still have B>A simply because the poll worker might not believe the person looks like their picture, or someone loses their ID and so now they can't vote, or etc. Kinda hard to make B<A when B is almost certainly gonna be at least a few just as a result of above type of occurences while A is either 0 or remarkably close to it (studies have been done on this, seriously, look them up). So as A < B for pretty much any situation under such a requirement, the law would be a shit law obviously designed to decrease legal democratic voter turnout. Which it obviously is, but we all knew that.

edit: yes I need coffee
 
Last edited:

Bart*Simpson

Senior member
Jul 21, 2015
604
4
36
www.canadaka.net
For a few reasons: first, that you are devising a solution to a problem which, in a practical sense, does not exist; and furthermore, because I understand how this would work. Wealthier individuals will have no problem getting them (well, they likely already have it), while poorer individuals would have problems getting them and etc.

Basically, this is a reasonable requirement if the number of votes that would be fraudulently cast that are prevented from being cast ('A') is greater than the number of legal votes that have been prevented from being cast ('B'). Even if literally every single voter was given a free ID, you would probably still have B>A simply because the poll worker might not believe the person looks like their picture, or someone loses their ID and so now they can't vote, or etc. Kinda hard to make B<A when B is almost certainly gonna be at least a few just as a result of above type of occurences while A is either 0 or remarkably close to it (studies have been done on this, seriously, look them up). So as A < B for pretty much any situation under such a requirement, the law would be a shit law obviously designed to decrease legal democratic voter turnout. Which it obviously is, but we all knew that.

edit: yes I need coffee

Just curious, but how many people in the USA do you really believe cannot substantially identify themselves in this day and age where practically every thing we do requires ID?

As to suppressing a Democrat vote we can just have them show their EBT cards and then let them vote. Fair enough?
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Then where do you stand on the same person not being able to obtain ID and then being deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights or their right to travel solely because they don't have a government issued ID?

Your second amendment rights aren't being deprived by background checks.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Plus if you can afford a gun you can afford the transportation to obtain an ID.
Voting on the other hand cost nothing. Transportation costs are minimized due to the many voting precincts centered on where voters live.

Transportation to get "free" ID on the other can take up to 3 hours for a significant number of poor voters which is a major impediment as found by the court in the Texas case.

You are not restricted from traveling without ID. You are restricted from driving on public roads. You may walk or take public transportation without an ID.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
Just curious, but how many people in the USA do you really believe cannot substantially identify themselves in this day and age where practically every thing we do requires ID?

As to suppressing a Democrat vote we can just have them show their EBT cards and then let them vote. Fair enough?

600,000 registered voters as found by the court in the Texas case. Extrapolated across the US - millions.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
And now Michigan!
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/21/michigan_judge_strikes_down_straight_party_voting_ban.html

They were banning straight party voting to protect the "purity" o_O of the voting process.

Turns out minorities tend to vote straight party and by removing that option it would slow down the voting more in minority districts causing longer lines, and less voting violating the Voting Rights Act and 14th amendment

So more hack judges pandering to the wishes of the dems. oh and the judge is a racist, saying blacks are to dumb to vote if there isn't a preselected vote for democrats box.
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
Just curious, but how many people in the USA do you really believe cannot substantially identify themselves in this day and age where practically every thing we do requires ID?

As to suppressing a Democrat vote we can just have them show their EBT cards and then let them vote. Fair enough?

600,000 people in Texas.
 

Bart*Simpson

Senior member
Jul 21, 2015
604
4
36
www.canadaka.net
Your second amendment rights aren't being deprived by background checks.

They are if I have to pay for them and can't afford them.

Plus if you can afford a gun you can afford the transportation to obtain an ID.

This isn't about the price of the gun, it's about the cost of the government regulatory structure - which is supposedly what you're arguing against.

Transportation to get "free" ID on the other can take up to 3 hours for a significant number of poor voters which is a major impediment as found by the court in the Texas case.

Then when Texas makes it easier for people to obtain ID you'd be happy to revisit the idea especially since ID is so useful in aspects of life aside from voting, right?

You are not restricted from traveling without ID. You are restricted from driving on public roads. You may walk or take public transportation without an ID.

Not in any of the states with 'Stop and Identify' laws on the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

The reality in those states (and in the rest of them, too) is that if a cop stops you and asks for ID and you don't have any they're going to detain you until they ID you.

So you may think you have a right to travel without ID but that right effectively ends the first time you come into contact with law enforcement.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,946
23,711
136
So more hack judges pandering to the wishes of the dems. oh and the judge is a racist, saying blacks are to dumb to vote if there isn't a preselected vote for democrats box.

LOL, that isn't what the judge ruled but hey nice job showing the entire forum once again how mentally challenged you are. But hey good news, Bart Simpson in this thread is trying to give you a run for your money. Keep on competing for the dumbest post in the thread.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,498
5,021
136
Also, if you do not have ID and a police officer stops you and asks for ID and you don't have any you'll end up in jail. You can't get on a Greyhound bus without ID. You can't use Amtrak without ID. You sure as hell can't fly anywhere without ID. And, of course, you can't drive without ID.

Yet we supposedly have a right to travel.


This is factually incorrect. First, cops don't really have the right to just stop anyone they want and demand ID. Second, not having ID on yourself if a cop stops you on the street and asks for it will not result in your being arrested...unless you falsely identify yourself. You do understand you are allowed to tell the cop who you are, right? You are not required to have photo ID on yourself at any time, unless, of course, you really want to live like those in Russia, China, NK, etc.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
LOL, that isn't what the judge ruled but hey nice job showing the entire forum once again how mentally challenged you are. But hey good news, Bart Simpson in this thread is trying to give you a run for your money. Keep on competing for the dumbest post in the thread.

He did.

Black people vote like 90%+ for dems. And since this judge says black people are too stupid to vote without a straight party ticket, they are harmed by this, so therefor this is harming democrats, and well anything that might harm a democrat is bad.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
25,946
23,711
136
He did.

Black people vote like 90%+ for dems. And since this judge says black people are too stupid to vote without a straight party ticket, they are harmed by this, so therefor this is harming democrats, and well anything that might harm a democrat is bad.

Nope
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Congrats to Michigan. We have 2x voted this bullshit away when the GOP has tried to eliminate straight party ticket voting. So what did they do this time... attach appropriations to it so it could never be undone. Fuck these piece of shit GOP state politicians trying their best to create as long a line as possible at heavily Democrat polling places. And a good laugh at the disingenuous fucks posting here pretending this is/was about anything else but trying to create a burden for minorities.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
He did.

Black people vote like 90%+ for dems. And since this judge says black people are too stupid to vote without a straight party ticket, they are harmed by this, so therefor this is harming democrats, and well anything that might harm a democrat is bad.

You really should stop drilling holes in your head. You're letting all the helium escape.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Congrats to Michigan. We have 2x voted this bullshit away when the GOP has tried to eliminate straight party ticket voting. So what did they do this time... attach appropriations to it so it could never be undone. Fuck these piece of shit GOP state politicians trying their best to create as long a line as possible at heavily Democrat polling places. And a good laugh at the disingenuous fucks posting here pretending this is/was about anything else but trying to create a burden for minorities.

Calling this a burden for minorities takes some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

Unless you are saying that minorities are somehow stupider or slower then white people that would have to vote exactly the same way.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Congrats to Michigan. We have 2x voted this bullshit away when the GOP has tried to eliminate straight party ticket voting. So what did they do this time... attach appropriations to it so it could never be undone. Fuck these piece of shit GOP state politicians trying their best to create as long a line as possible at heavily Democrat polling places. And a good laugh at the disingenuous fucks posting here pretending this is/was about anything else but trying to create a burden for minorities.

The OP had nothing to do with straight ticket voting at first and I have no opinion about it one way or the other. I'm not really sure why the state needs to provide a compelling state interest to implement it since IIRC Michigan was never covered by the Voting Rights Act pre-clearance provisions but I'm guessing higher courts will sort all that out. Seems that if the state had the right to create the means to vote straight ticket they would likewise have the right to undo it and whether it's good as public policy shouldn't be a judicial decision.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
They are if I have to pay for them and can't afford them.



This isn't about the price of the gun, it's about the cost of the government regulatory structure - which is supposedly what you're arguing against.



Then when Texas makes it easier for people to obtain ID you'd be happy to revisit the idea especially since ID is so useful in aspects of life aside from voting, right?



Not in any of the states with 'Stop and Identify' laws on the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

The reality in those states (and in the rest of them, too) is that if a cop stops you and asks for ID and you don't have any they're going to detain you until they ID you.

So you may think you have a right to travel without ID but that right effectively ends the first time you come into contact with law enforcement.

No court would find the cost an ID an impediment to purchasing a weapon. Sales tax is more of an impediment than that. If you only were allowed to purchase a firearm on one day ever two years maybe you could prove an undo burden in failing to obtain an ID.

I would only accept implementing a picture ID requirement for voting if actual data showed a need for one. The current process keeps in person fraudulent voting to less than .04 fraudulent votes per state per year on average. Disenfranchiseming 10,000s of voters is idiotic. To do it per the reasoning given by conservative over and over again, to manipulate the system and elect more republicans is borderline treasonous.

Stop and identify was addressed above.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,600
13,272
146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

Hey I thought it was about stopping voter fraud??

I know they keep letting the cat out of the bag:

A Republican congressman on Tuesday night acknowledged that the new law requiring a photo ID to vote in Wisconsin could help Republican candidates at the polls in the general election.

“I think Hillary Clinton is about the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever put up. And now we have photo ID, and I think photo ID is going to make a little bit of a difference as well,” Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI), a supporter of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), told Milwaukee television station TMJ4 when asked how either Cruz or Donald Trump could win in November.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
You really should stop drilling holes in your head. You're letting all the helium escape.

He can't. He is stuck on disingenuous stupidity. He needs to ask himself why he hates America and why he hates minorities so much he wants to make it as long and as difficult as possible for them to be able to vote and why in particular he wants to see the will of the Michigan voters, twice now, thrown out. We all know the answer to this already though...
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
He can't. He is stuck on disingenuous stupidity. He needs to ask himself why he hates America and why he hates minorities so much he wants to make it as long and as difficult as possible for them to be able to vote and why in particular he wants to see the will of the Michigan voters, twice now, thrown out. We all know the answer to this already though...

So the elected legislature and governor who passed the law twice don't express the will of the voters?

So let me reiterate my question from earlier. Leaving aside discussion about whether it's good policy, does a state which created the means to vote straight ticket also have the right to remove this ability or is it a one-way thing that can't be undone? And if so, why? Also, using the same logic you used to answer this question, should other states then be obliged to create a similar 'service' for voters?
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,498
5,021
136
Not in any of the states with 'Stop and Identify' laws on the books.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

The reality in those states (and in the rest of them, too) is that if a cop stops you and asks for ID and you don't have any they're going to detain you until they ID you.

So you may think you have a right to travel without ID but that right effectively ends the first time you come into contact with law enforcement.


You really never spent any time looking at those "stop and ID" laws you linked to, did you?

Take GA, for instance, which is on the list. The statute linked for GA concerns loitering.....ONLY. There is no general law in GA for stop and ID.

This is the FL law:

[SIZE=-1]
Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person temporarily detained and the circumstances surrounding the person&#8217;s presence abroad which led the officer to believe that the person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense.
(Taken, again, from the link you provided.)

Again, the police have to suspect a crime is about to be committed, is being committed, or has been just completed. Nowhere is there anything about just randomly stopping citizens and asking for ID. That's patently unconstitutional.
[/SIZE]

This section from Wiki pretty much sums up stop and ID :

At any time, police may approach a person and ask questions. The objective may simply be a friendly conversation; however, the police also may suspect involvement in a crime, but lack "specific and articulable facts" that would justify a detention or arrest, and hope to obtain these facts from the questioning. The person approached is not required to identify himself or answer any other questions, and may leave at any time. Police are not usually required to tell a person that he is free to decline to answer questions and go about his business; however, a person can usually determine whether the interaction is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?"