Wisconsin, Texas voter ID laws blocked by courts

[charrison]

I dont get it, why dont states just issue ID cards to everyone once they turn 18? It seems pretty logical to me, we all get issued social security cards at birth, why no state ID's (assuming you dont have one/a license.)

They voter id laws basically do that. They are saying it is too difficult to pick up a damned free id card.

 

[Brainonska511]

They voter id laws basically do that. They are saying it is too difficult to pick up a damned free id card.

Yes, easy to pick up if you have a car, can take time off from work, can wait in line for hours at a DMV, and can assemble the requisite paperwork to prove who you are to be issued said photo ID. Yep, definitely easy for everyone

 

[glenn1]

Yes, easy to pick up if you have a car, can take time off from work, can wait in line for hours at a DMV, and can assemble the requisite paperwork to prove who you are to be issued said photo ID. Yep, definitely easy for everyone

Don't forget they have to buy clothes else they'd be turned away from voting as well, that's a poll tax.

 

[michal1980]

The canard here neither side is against some sort of ID for voting.

If the states want to cut down "on the so called fraud" and allow more eligible people to vote they would do two things.

1. Issue the required ID to all state citizens of voting age.
2. Allow voting the weekend before election day through Tuesday, including the Sunday before.

They won't do this because its not about getting more eligible people to the polls, its about get the "right people" to the polls.

As for liberals being to lazy yes they are too lazy to wait up to 7 hours in line to vote.

1 everyone that wants an id can get an idea

2) why?

How long do elections need to take? is one weekend enough? Why not two? Why not the whole month? Why not right after the primaries?

 

[theeedude]

GOP is the party of voter suppression, it seems like, and they are proud of it.
Although David Brooks, resident Republican commentator on PBS NewsHour said there is no reason for it, and it was wrong, but he's now called a RINO.
That's how dictatorships start. When politicians do something to limit the public's ability to vote them out, and their supporters find an excuse to do nothing about it or even support it.

 

[Texashiker]

GOP is the party of voter suppression, it seems like, and they are proud of it.

We just want others to live by the same laws that we live by.

 

[theeedude]

We just want others to live by the same laws that we live by.

That is already true even without voter ID laws.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

We just want others to live by the same laws that we live by.

You mean you want to create laws to force people to live how you say. Since before the introduction of SB 14 in Texas and now after it has been struck down everyone is, in fact, living by the same laws.

 

[Texashiker]

You mean you want to create laws to force people to live how you say.

Just about everything I have done in life has required some kind of government issued photo id.

The issue here is not about requiring an id, it is about giving people who do not want to integrate with society a special pass.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Just about everything I have done in life has required some kind of government issued photo id.

The issue here is not about requiring an id, it is about giving people who do not want to integrate with society a special pass.

You really are reaching now. Don't want to integrate with society? You've already been shown repeatedly how people can get jobs, pay taxes, function in every day life without having the IDs that Texas restricted to for voting.

Retirees who no longer drive or travel out of the country, who worked their entire lives for their retirement aren't integrated?

How exactly are you defining integrated if people who function or have functioned their entire lives aren't? It can't be simply having a piece of government issued photo ID since you really have no way of knowing if anyone you've interacted with each and every day have one. So what makes someone integrated to your satisfaction?

 

[Texashiker]

You really are reaching now. Don't want to integrate with society? You've already been shown repeatedly how people can get jobs, pay taxes, function in every day life without having the IDs that Texas restricted to for voting.

You have to provide a social security number to work and pay taxes.

Please show where someone can get a job with no government issued id.

Retirees who no longer drive or travel out of the country, who worked their entire lives for their retirement aren't integrated?

You do not know what a state id is?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

You have to provide a social security number to work and pay taxes.

Please show where someone can get a job with no government issued id.



You do not know what a state id is?

Is this thread not about voting? Millions of people have the ID necessary to get a job but still can't vote with the restrictive laws. Millions more are retired after working and voting their entire lives and now don't have the ID necessary to vote under these laws. So why aren't you discussing the ID sufficient to vote?

 

[Bowfinger]

You have to provide a social security number to work and pay taxes.

Please show where someone can get a job with no government issued id. ...

Copied from the other thread, since you continue to repeat the same disingenuous nonsense:

You are either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest, your choice. While the specific requirements vary from state to state, one of the common themes of these voter suppression laws is they require a current, state-issued, photo ID. Note all three requirements: current, state-issued, and photo. A Social Security card isn't acceptable because it has no photo and no expiration date to show currency. A student ID doesn't count because it's not state-issued. An expired drivers license doesn't qualify because even though the name and picture are you, you no longer drive and let your license expire. Etc.

Those restrictions are the problem with these laws. They are designed to disenfranchise certain demographics: elderly, students, minorities, and poor people who are less likely to have IDs meeting all three requirements. Your diversion about any "government id (sic)" is a straw man, irrelevant to the actual debate.

Similarly, your crack about spending a few minutes of one's time is also a straw man. For a great many people, obtaining the required current, state-issued photo ID is a material hurdle. Required documents can be relatively expensive and may not be readily available. Getting to a DMV may be challenging for someone without a car, especially since so many states are consolidating DMVs into fewer, more distant locations. The bottom line is you are not the center of the universe. Just because it's just a few minutes of your time to get an ID doesn't mean it's true for everyone.

Finally, there's the very basic issue that these suppression laws are worse than the virtually non-existent problem they pretend to fix. They cost millions of dollars to implement and do orders of magnitude more harm -- disenfranchising legitimate voters -- than they do good -- preventing the scant instances of in-person voter impersonation. It's completely transparent that the self-proclaimed party of business expertise consistently misses this basic cost/benefit comparison.
​

 

[Jhhnn]

Is this thread not about voting? Millions of people have the ID necessary to get a job but still can't vote with the restrictive laws. Millions more are retired after working and voting their entire lives and now don't have the ID necessary to vote under these laws. So why aren't you discussing the ID sufficient to vote?

He's trying to avoid cognitive dissonance by changing the subject.

 

[Bowfinger]

Again, what that court and you think doesn't matter. Either it will be overturned by SCOTUS in which case your opinion is moot, or they'll agree and you'll have your way. My opinion (which is just as worthless as yours) is that the clear text of the Crawford decision about gathering underlying documents not being a burden will be reaffirmed.

Umm, that's NOT what the Crawford decision says. On the contrary, it acknowledges that the Indiana law does create a burden for some eligible voters, even with the free ID and provisional ballot accommodations. The petitioners filed a facial challenge to the law, attempting to have the entire law struck down as unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the petitioners did not provided enough evidence to prove the impact justified that extreme remedy. Consequently, the Court deferred to the State's right to manage its own elections, refusing to strike down the entire law based on the evidence provided.

There was a comment suggesting the petitioners might have prevailed had they either focused on specific impacted classes or been able to better quantify the number of eligible voters harmed. It would be interesting to see how a similar suit would fare today, given there is so much more data available now. It's also interesting that the court acknowledged the State failed to show any evidence of in-person voter impersonation, and that there was partisan motivation behind the law.

 

[OutHouse]

All military personnel have an official government issued ID so I don't see what the issue is.

umm that DoD ID has nothing to do with voting.

 

[Texashiker]

Copied from the other thread, since you continue to repeat the same disingenuous nonsense:

You are either willfully ignorant or willfully dishonest, your choice. While the specific requirements vary from state to state, one of the common themes of these voter suppression laws is they require a current, state-issued, photo ID.​

Requiring an id suppressors voters as much as requiring a SS number suppresses employment.

Does requiring an id suppress gun ownership? Nope.

Does requiring a SS number suppress employment? Nope.

Does requiring a background check for a gun purchases suppress gun ownership? Nope.

1968 federal firearms act - what do you mean I can no longer buy a gun through the mail? What about my rights?

Brady act - what do you mean I have a waiting period? What about my rights?

Affordable care act - what do you mean I have to buy a product? What about my rights?

Get over it already. The government can restrict your rights.

So you are against voter ids, are you opposed to a SS number to work?

 

[Bowfinger]

Requiring an id suppressors voters as much as requiring a SS number suppresses employment.

Does requiring an id suppress gun ownership? Nope.

Does requiring a SS number suppress employment? Nope.

Does requiring a background check for a gun purchases suppress gun ownership? Nope.

1968 federal firearms act - what do you mean I can no longer buy a gun through the mail? What about my rights?

Brady act - what do you mean I have a waiting period? What about my rights?

Affordable care act - what do you mean I have to buy a product? What about my rights?

Get over it already. The government can restrict your rights.

So you are against voter ids, are you opposed to a SS number to work?

You are now babbling incoherently, desperately trying to change the subject to anything except voter ID laws. Unless you're suggesting that a Social Security number should be adequate for voter identification, you are completely off topic. Try to focus.

 

[maddogchen]

Personally I always bring my ID to vote. Seems common sense to me.

But I was in Wisconsin last week for healthcare training and this was a huge issue in the the news for them. Apparently the law helped catch like 15 people but prevented thousands of legitimate voters from voting. Lots of elderly and rural farmers don't know where there ID is or have one in Wisconsin

It's such a big deal that many republicans are going to try to vote out the state secretary who wrote the law by voting for the opposing democrat. We will see if they bother to get an ID before then to vote haha

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Personally I always bring my ID to vote. Seems common sense to me.

But I was in Wisconsin last week for healthcare training and this was a huge issue in the the news for them. Apparently the law helped catch like 15 people but prevented thousands of legitimate voters from voting. Lots of elderly and rural farmers don't know where there ID is or have one in Wisconsin

It's such a big deal that many republicans are going to try to vote out the state secretary who wrote the law by voting for the opposing democrat. We will see if they bother to get an ID before then to vote haha

Fortunately with SCOTUS ruling they won't need to worry about the ID issue to do so.

 

[Jhhnn]

Just about everything I have done in life has required some kind of government issued photo id.

The issue here is not about requiring an id, it is about giving people who do not want to integrate with society a special pass.

Hogwash. I'll bet you didn't need that ID to register to vote the first time, and haven't needed it for voting at all ever since, provided you voted in every general election.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are now babbling incoherently, desperately trying to change the subject to anything except voter ID laws. Unless you're suggesting that a Social Security number should be adequate for voter identification, you are completely off topic. Try to focus.

When his SS card argument fails in any thread, he drops the discussion, makes the same argument over & over again in yet another thread. He does the same wrt any topic.

He's not a thinker, he's a believer, and there's nothing to be done about it. Might as well argue the divinity of Jesus with an Archbishop.

 

[Texashiker]

You are now babbling incoherently, desperately trying to change the subject to anything except voter ID laws.

Everything I posted is directly related to voter id laws.

Hogwash. I'll bet you didn't need that ID to register to vote the first time, and haven't needed it for voting at all ever since, provided you voted in every general election.

I do not remember if I needed an id or not.

If an id was needed I can provide multiple forms without question.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

When his SS card argument fails in any thread, he drops the discussion, makes the same argument over & over again in yet another thread. He does the same wrt any topic.

He's not a thinker, he's a believer, and there's nothing to be done about it. Might as well argue the divinity of Jesus with an Archbishop.

WHat I'm finding personally amusing is his argument of "It's the law, deal with it" when I reflect on his long posting history relating to abortion (completely legal everywhere) and gay marriage (legal in half the country and opposing laws falling fast). He doesn't seem to be dealing with those laws all that well.

 

[Jhhnn]

WHat I'm finding personally amusing is his argument of "It's the law, deal with it" when I reflect on his long posting history relating to abortion (completely legal everywhere) and gay marriage (legal in half the country and opposing laws falling fast). He doesn't seem to be dealing with those laws all that well.

It's his inner authoritarian coming out.