Left vs. Right -- Voter ID and Background Checks

[CycloWizard]

I'm curious to know whether those who oppose voter ID laws favor these similar impediments to another constitutional right. If constitutional rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form as I have been told in the voter ID debate, then on what grounds are barriers to gun ownership erected?

Edit: Now that this is its own thread, I will reiterate my prior arguments regarding voter ID laws. Voter IDs should be free and distributed as needed to avoid disenfranchisement. The basic idea for distribution would be like a bookmobile traveling to relevant neighborhoods. Over the course of four years, this should be enough to get the job done with virtually no burden on the voter and minimal cost.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm curious to know whether those who oppose voter ID laws favor these similar impediments to another constitutional right. If constitutional rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form as I have been told in the voter ID debate, then on what grounds are barriers to gun ownership erected?

I've never said constitutional rights can't be impeded so I don't know who you are referring to. I've also stated that voter ID laws are ok as long as the ID is free and no unreasonable burden is put on someone to get the ID. The reason I say that is because poll taxes have specifically been called out and are not allowed according to the constitution, no such restriction exists for gun rights. SCOTUS has ruled that there can be limits placed on constitutional rights, a background check would be one of them.
Background checks already exists and as far as I'm aware they haven't been ruled unconstitutional so I don't see how requiring private sales to do background checks would be found unconstitutional.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

CycloWizard brought up a point well-worth discussing. Since it was buried in another thread and not likely to be seen, I split it out here with his agreement.

 

[hardhat]

I think the clearest distinction between the two is that suppressing the right to vote is not a means of protecting anyone or fulfilling another government obligation. We allow gun regulations so that government can fulfill its duty in protecting the populace.

 

[TheSiege]

I think it really just depends, gun ownership and voting can both be forms of protection and they could also do damage in the wrong hands. But in general I have to be more left leaning. It shouldn't cost money to exercise a right. I can own a gun without it costing me money, and it should be the same when it comes to voting.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm curious to know whether those who oppose voter ID laws favor these similar impediments to another constitutional right. If constitutional rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form as I have been told in the voter ID debate, then on what grounds are barriers to gun ownership erected?

No one has ever argued that such rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form.

Ever.

Rights should be impeded to the smallest extent possible in order to achieve society's needs. In the case of voter ID, nothing is accomplished as all evidence shows the crime it is intended to prevent does not occur. THAT is why voter ID is terrible. It exists purely as an attempt by partisans to limit the voting of their political opponents. Everyone, regardless of ideology should be able to unite against that.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think it really just depends, gun ownership and voting can both be forms of protection and they could also do damage in the wrong hands. But in general I have to be more left leaning. It shouldn't cost money to exercise a right. I can own a gun without it costing me money, and it should be the same when it comes to voting.

How can you own a gun without spending money? :hmm: Also, please see my edit of the OP regarding the key point that any voter ID must be free and distributed such that everyone has easy access. The process would also have to start long before an election to avoid any shenanigans.

 

[CycloWizard]

I think the clearest distinction between the two is that suppressing the right to vote is not a means of protecting anyone or fulfilling another government obligation. We allow gun regulations so that government can fulfill its duty in protecting the populace.

No one mentioned suppressing voters. We are discussing whether barriers to constitutional rights should be permitted and, if so, under what circumstances. The bigger picture is that some logical structure which governs all such rights should be applied uniformly across the board rather than in a piecemeal fashion.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

If a state sets voter I'd laws now to be implemented by 2016 it would be far more reasonable than in the election year which has often been the case. But there needs to be ample opportunity for every last person to be able to access facilities to get said IDs. Limiting hours and closing facilities in certain areas after implementing such laws is not reasonable or fair. People will argue 8 months is enough. Perhaps it is for many people but its doesn't have to be just 8 months or less as in some instances.

There also need to be clear, easy processes in place to accommodate situations that arise all too frequently. As an example the many many people born in the rural, poor south during the 30's-60's whose births were never registered. People who have voted for decades who suddenly lost the right because the ID requirements include a birth certificate that those people can never obtain.

It can be done fairly and reasonably. It just doesn't seem like there is much interest in doing so.

 

[beachchica]

No one has ever argued that such rights cannot be impeded in any way, shape, or form.

Ever.

Rights should be impeded to the smallest extent possible in order to achieve society's needs. In the case of voter ID, nothing is accomplished as all evidence shows the crime it is intended to prevent does not occur. THAT is why voter ID is terrible. It exists purely as an attempt by partisans to limit the voting of their political opponents. Everyone, regardless of ideology should be able to unite against that.

I disagree. How do you know if a crime is happening or not if you're not checking? It's like having all the cops stop using radar guns. 'Oh hey... we haven't written a speeding ticket in over a year. Nobody speeds anymore!'

As for rights, if someone votes one time, legitimately, under their own name, then comes back and casts a vote under the name of someone they know won't vote, they just canceled out my vote. That's taking away MY right by unfairly tipping scales in favor of their guy.

You should have to show photo ID to vote, plain and simple. Make them free! But at some point along the way whoever is voting should have to prove who they are.

Either that or we do it Baghdad style... purple fingers for everyone.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I disagree. How do you know if a crime is happening or not if you're not checking? It's like having all the cops stop using radar guns. 'Oh hey... we haven't written a speeding ticket in over a year. Nobody speeds anymore!'

As for rights, if someone votes one time, legitimately, under their own name, then comes back and casts a vote under the name of someone they know won't vote, they just canceled out my vote. That's taking away MY right by unfairly tipping scales in favor of their guy.

You should have to show photo ID to vote, plain and simple. Make them free! But at some point along the way whoever is voting should have to prove who they are.

Either that or we do it Baghdad style... purple fingers for everyone.

What makes you think they aren't checking? If voter impersonation was an issue there'd be many examples each year of people showing up to vote only to find a ballot in their name was already cast.

Right now when those instances occur they are investigated and almost always found to have been a clerical error. With tens of millions of votes cast each year there are almost no occurrences left unexplained. It would be impossible for vote impersonators to be that successful year after year in not being detected.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree. How do you know if a crime is happening or not if you're not checking? It's like having all the cops stop using radar guns. 'Oh hey... we haven't written a speeding ticket in over a year. Nobody speeds anymore!'

As for rights, if someone votes one time, legitimately, under their own name, then comes back and casts a vote under the name of someone they know won't vote, they just canceled out my vote. That's taking away MY right by unfairly tipping scales in favor of their guy.

You should have to show photo ID to vote, plain and simple. Make them free! But at some point along the way whoever is voting should have to prove who they are.

Either that or we do it Baghdad style... purple fingers for everyone.

We do in fact check. Numerous audits of voting records have taken place and show almost none of the double votes that you would invariably get with in person voter fraud.

If your argument is based on the idea that all this in person voter fraud is taking place based on a conspiracy of individuals that are independently casing the voting habits of their neighbors and risking felony convictions and years in jail to cast a single additional vote...well...im just going to say that your argument strains credulity.

Shouldn't these master vote impersonators occasionally get it wrong and thus have multiple votes recorded? How do you explain their amazing track record? Isn't the vastly...vastly more likely conclusion that the risk/reward of in person voter fraud is so bad that people don't do it and instead stick to absentee ballot fraud? (note:the Republicans have made no effort to reign in absentee ballot fraud despite clear evidence that such fraud actually does exist. I wonder why.)

This is about suppressing unfriendly voters, nothing more.

 

[TheSiege]

How can you own a gun without spending money? :hmm: Also, please see my edit of the OP regarding the key point that any voter ID must be free and distributed such that everyone has easy access. The process would also have to start long before an election to avoid any shenanigans.

I have half a dozen guns, I have never paid for one. Birthdays, Christmas, passed down to me. The same can't be said for voting. I can't inherit a vote and I can't receive one as a present.

 

[Mxylplyx]

It exists purely as an attempt by partisans to limit the voting of their political opponents. Everyone, regardless of ideology should be able to unite against that.

This.

The right has done a very poor job of masking their true intentions when it comes to imposing voter requirements in an effort to fight supposed "voter fraud". Many of my conservative friends cant even tell me with a straight face that Republicans have pure intentions while supporting these laws. Any objective person should be able to figure out whats going on here.

 

[ivwshane]

This.

The right has done a very poor job of masking their true intentions when it comes to imposing voter requirements in an effort to fight supposed "voter fraud". Many of my conservative friends cant even tell me with a straight face that Republicans have pure intentions while supporting these laws. Any objective person should be able to figure out whats going on here.

That's the thing that I don't understand; how can they possibly turn a blind eye to this? At the very least you would think they would look at the situation and see that if it was turned around (dems disenfranchising repubs) they would be so outraged that they would probably use their "2nd amendment remedies". But nope, they either make excuses for such behavior or worse, remain silent.

It all comes back to this; Party first, country second (maybe even third).

 

[fskimospy]

That's the thing that I don't understand; how can they possibly turn a blind eye to this? At rge very least you would think they would look at the situation and see that if it was turned around (dems disenfranchising repubs) they would be so outraged that they would probably use their "2nd amendment remedies". But nope, they either make excuses for such behavior or worse, remain silent.

It all comes back to this; Party first, country second (maybe even third).

It never ceases to amaze me that people so convinced that government doesn't represent them do so much work to prevent people from having a say in who represents them.

It is because they don't actually want full representation, they want representation of the "good" people. Ie: people who think like them. I mean how many times have people on here trotted out tax requirements, property requirements, etc? Can't have the poors voting.

 

[Mxylplyx]

That's the thing that I don't understand; how can they possibly turn a blind eye to this? At rge very least you would think they would look at the situation and see that if it was turned around (dems disenfranchising repubs) they would be so outraged that they would probably use their "2nd amendment remedies". But nope, they either make excuses for such behavior or worse, remain silent.

It all comes back to this; Party first, country second (maybe even third).

Disenfranchising Mexicans and blacks is much more palatable to many on the right.

 

[Fern]

I think the clearest distinction between the two is that suppressing the right to vote is not a means of protecting anyone or fulfilling another government obligation. We allow gun regulations so that government can fulfill its duty in protecting the populace.

An illegal vote suppresses, or cancels out, someone's else's vote. To prevent illegal votes is to protect legal ones.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

If a state sets voter I'd laws now to be implemented by 2016 it would be far more reasonable than in the election year which has often been the case. But there needs to be ample opportunity for every last person to be able to access facilities to get said IDs. Limiting hours and closing facilities in certain areas after implementing such laws is not reasonable or fair. People will argue 8 months is enough. Perhaps it is for many people but its doesn't have to be just 8 months or less as in some instances.

There also need to be clear, easy processes in place to accommodate situations that arise all too frequently. As an example the many many people born in the rural, poor south during the 30's-60's whose births were never registered. People who have voted for decades who suddenly lost the right because the ID requirements include a birth certificate that those people can never obtain.

It can be done fairly and reasonably. It just doesn't seem like there is much interest in doing so.

Agreed. I think positive ID should be absolutely mandatory to exercise our most fundamental power, but it should be as uniform as possible uniform across the nation, with each state taking whatever steps are required to service their own population. And you are also correct that such laws should have at least two years before they kick in.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

An illegal vote suppresses, or cancels out, someone's else's vote. To prevent illegal votes is to protect legal ones.

Fern

How does an illegal vote cancel out someone else's vote?

 

[Fern]

We do in fact check. Numerous audits of voting records have taken place and show almost none of the double votes that you would invariably get with in person voter fraud.

And the audits have shown huge amounts illegal voters on the rolls. ("Illegal" is the wrong term, it is people who should not be registered but are anyway.)

Our voting system and lack of any safeguards is deplorable.

Yes, absentee ballots should be subject to safeguards, but I haven't heard of anything suggested that is do-able so far.

------------

To the OP's question: I think most people are OK with both reasonable background checks for gun purchases and voter IDs.

I have never heard a Repub or conservative argue that there shouldn't be any background checks for gun purchases. OTOH, I've seen a bunch of Dem/Libs argue there shouldn't be any voter IDs.

Fern

 

[Atomic Playboy]

To the OP's question: I think most people are OK with both reasonable background checks for gun purchases and voter IDs.

I have never heard a Repub or conservative argue that there shouldn't be any background checks for gun purchases. OTOH, I've seen a bunch of Dem/Libs argue there shouldn't be any voter IDs.

Fern

I don't think Dems/libs are specifically arguing against all voter IDs, but rather when voter ID laws are attempted to be enacted in a very short amount of time right around an election, which begins to look like an attempt to disrupt the voting in that specific election rather than enacting actual reform. There's also a simple cost/benefit analysis, in that studies have shown that in-person voter fraud is extremely rare, and ensuring that everyone gets a free ID (to avoid ID constituting a poll tax) can be very costly for any jurisdiction that were to enact such measures. Is that really the best use of taxpayer money, given how small the problem seems to be?

And the audits have shown huge amounts illegal voters on the rolls. ("Illegal" is the wrong term, it is people who should not be registered but are anyway.)

Which audits are those? The studies I've seen said that in-person voter fraud was virtually non-existent.

 

[fskimospy]

And the audits have shown huge amounts illegal voters on the rolls. ("Illegal" is the wrong term, it is people who should not be registered but are anyway.)

Our voting system and lack of any safeguards is deplorable.

Yes, absentee ballots should be subject to safeguards, but I haven't heard of anything suggested that is do-able so far.

Audits have in fact definitely shown people who should not be registered but are anyway. This thread is about voter ID however, and voter ID would do absolutely nothing to address that problem. Each person incorrectly registered would have been able to vote every bit as much with or without ID.

So if you think our system has problems lets address those problems. What I see no evidence of is that our system has THIS problem, or any problem that passing a voter ID law would help. The only thing I can take this to mean is that because our voting system has an unrelated problem, we must assume that it has an in person voting fraud problem despite numerous unsuccessful attempts to uncover any evidence for it.

That's a terrible, terrible argument.

To the OP's question: I think most people are OK with both reasonable background checks for gun purchases and voter IDs.

I have never heard a Repub or conservative argue that there shouldn't be any background checks for gun purchases. OTOH, I've seen a bunch of Dem/Libs argue there shouldn't be any voter IDs.

Fern

You realize that lots and lots of conservatives are against closing the gun show loophole, a hole in background checks so large that you can drive an 18 wheeler through it, right?

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Which audits are those? The studies I've seen said that in-person voter fraud was virtually non-existent.

I've posted rather extensively about it before and gave links, so Iwon't do so again.

But IIRC, in the recent past Congress passed legislation requiring states to audit their voter rolls. Of the states reporting, my recollection was that substantial problems were uncovered, meaning people registered as legal who were not. These people were 'illegal' voters for a number of reasons such as being felons, were deceased, moved away or otherwise registered in multiple places or were illegal aliens.

Another disturbing problem was that in all cases it was made clear that no effort would be made to correct the errors.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Audits have in fact definitely shown people who should not be registered but are anyway. This thread is about voter ID however, and voter ID would do absolutely nothing to address that problem. Each person incorrectly registered would have been able to vote every bit as much with or without ID.

So if you think our system has problems lets address those problems. What I see no evidence of is that our system has THIS problem, or any problem that passing a voter ID law would help. The only thing I can take this to mean is that because our voting system has an unrelated problem, we must assume that it has an in person voting fraud problem despite numerous unsuccessful attempts to uncover any evidence for it.

That's a terrible, terrible argument.

If you've got voter rolls full of people who shouldn't be on them, e.g., dead people, those who've moved away or otherwise having multiple registrations, you're not going find situations where multiple people have shown up to vote on the same account.

Without an ID, the easiest way to commit voter fraud and never get caught is simply to register bogus people. The bogus person is never going to actually show up.

You realize that lots and lots of conservatives are against closing the gun show loophole, a hole in background checks so large that you can drive an 18 wheeler through it, right?

It's a "loophole", but you exaggerate it.

Elsewhere in this subforum I posted info, with links, to remarks by some BATF expert on where criminals get guns. Gun shows aren't even on the radar. You're going after a problem that doesn't exist, as you claim those who favor voter IDs are doing.

Some states already background checks for gun show sales.

Every state I've checked into already has requirements for private party sales. An example would be that the (private) seller can only sell to residents of that state and must confirm such demanding to see the purchaser's drivers license.

Personally, I have no problem with checks at gun shows. We do it in NC and I don't see a problem.

However, I do have problems with some of the specific proposals I've seen on how to implement a background check. I find some to be pretty unrealistic and impractical.

Fern